Your critique appears to mischaracterize both the article and how scientific communication works. The ICM-CSIC piece isn't "taking liberties". If you read the article you will find it is presenting direct quotes and interpretations from the actual researchers who conducted the study. When Antonio Turiel, a co-author of the PNAS paper, states "we're seeing that the SMOC is not just weakening, but has reversed," that's the research team's own assessment, not journalistic embellishment.
It sounds like you really want the article to not discuss anything beyond anything explicit stated in the paper. I find that an incredibly bizarre desire which strengthens my impression of your comment as bad-faith. Research papers focus on presenting specific findings and data, while institutional communications appropriately discuss broader implications and potential consequences. This isn't misleading, it's how scientific discourse functions, AS INTENDED!
The CO₂ implications you dismiss aren't pulled out the article's author's behind. They come from researchers who understand their data and its significance for carbon cycling. Scientists routinely discuss the wider ramifications of their findings beyond what fits in a technical paper's scope. This is good, not misleading or disinformation.
Labeling this "disinformation" is a smear of what appears to be legitimate scientific interpretation by the researchers themselves. There's a meaningful difference between debating the certainty or magnitude of predicted impacts and dismissing expert analysis as fabrication.
Turiel is a physicist and the other two commenters are telecommunication engineers. The paper itself, which I read, states that salinity has increased and previous stratification has been disrupted. And that's where they stop because that's what the data tells them. Then they say that we need to perform more studies to understand what's going on, which is the logical conclusion.
There is no mention of "doubling of co2 emissions" or "deep Southern ocean circulation has reversed completely" in the study.
Don't see many Ferrari's, but I can tell you a Prius driver is almost certainly an asshole. They are either Top Gear driving or Hypermiling, either way its at least a nuisance and sometimes a menace.
from my anecdotal experience, it seems like the brand of car that assholes drive is determined mainly by the median income of the locale. in poor areas, assholes drive shitty old hondas. in rich areas, they drive bmws and mercedes. in california, you are quite right; they drive priuses.
I'm saying that there are assholes everywhere and they drive the car they can afford. the California part is kind of a joke, but also somewhat true in my experience.
I have yet to become allergic to Google snooping but understand that lack of trust to be very well founded. I think I understand their secure boot architecture, though. Whereas I simply cannot trust Windows Secure Boot based vendor firmware.
Apple iOS devices. Their macOS Intel computers are about as trustworthy as Chromebook Intel.
Not-so-recent ThinkPad laptops with OpenBoot BIOS are ok.
But.
All of these devices have radios with each their own, black-box operating systems. I don't know how to develop a basis for trust there.
So I am left with very few alternatives.
A Raptor Talos II Workstation, with a custom battery-based power supply, locked inside a Faraday cage. Turned off.
Sort of. Socialists contend that the mechanical logic of the system makes that impossible, so the economic system must be refounded on the material basis of the political power of the majority - worker control of the economy / democratic control of the economy. Those two ideas go hand in hand.
You're confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is a political philosophy, whereas communism is one specific (but not the only possible) implementation of that philosophy. Socialism is also intended to be a criticism of and attempt to redress the immorality of capitalism, so morality does enter into it, at least in theory.
Socialism as it's understood now is a specific plan for replacing Capitalism, tied to a specific theory of history, not just a philosophy. At the level of implementation, it isn't morality, it's economics and politics. There might be morality behind it, but there's morality behind all actions, to some extent.
Many modern capitalist governments, including the US, employ socialist programs with no intention of overturning capitalism itself.
And the entire thesis behind socialism is that it's morally superior to capitalism, in a similar way that free software is argued as being morally superior to proprietary software.
> I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.
No, it could also be the society's moral system. For instance, take a hypothetical capitalist society where the shame and stigma of violating human rights is very strong. A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.
> A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.
The emotional de-attachment is needed for many people I expect. I once raised a small herd of bottle calves. The day I sold them to market is the day I dropped any dream of raising livestock.
NPR also recently had a story with this conclusion.
It doesn't seem all that pricey or complicated to me. Perhaps I'm missing some of the big picture, but it sure seems odd this angle has been hitting main stream media in a reinforcing manner.
I want to re-watch Futurama. Can you tell me where it’s available to stream?
It was on Netflix for a few months, now it’s a Hulu exclusive (IIRC). For how long? No one knows.
How many services do I need to subscribe to to get most of the content I need/want? 3? 5? More? How much will it cost?
Oh, and you’re lucky if you’re in the US. If you’re outside the US, finding whete content is available becomes a never-ending exercise in frustration due to territorial limitations (which for some reason still apply to globally available and accessible internet services).
Finding where content is available outside the US isn't a super hard exercise, it's just frustrating. The answer at least half the time is "you can't".
As a Brit, it used to be a simple flow: check Netflix, almost certainly on there, watch.
Now it's usually not on there, and checking JustWatch shows that it's unavailable in the UK (without paying to buy or 'lease' the content, usually for a similar price to the streaming service's monthly rate).
You can see why torrenting is on the rise again: a Netflix subscription just doesn't cut it anymore, and Hulu isn't available in the UK without a VPN.
Canada and the US have 10-11% more content than UK. The disparity was much greater before most content providers left Netflix and before the advent of Netflix's original programming.
It was and still is even worse for other countries (I live in Sweden, it has 30% less content than the UK)
> You get into how our fingers prune up for better grip in the water
Awfully skeptical of that claim. While there is more friction area potentially, skin is very easy to damage when "pruned". You can't use any significant force in this condition making normal skin with higher force capability much more useful in water.
"In the latest study, participants picked up wet or dry objects including marbles of different sizes with normal hands or with fingers wrinkled after soaking in warm water for 30 minutes. The subjects were faster at picking up wet marbles with wrinkled fingers than with dry ones, but wrinkles made no difference for moving dry objects. The results are published today in Biology Letters"
I think we can all agree insurance is something of a racket, but are you implying in-network dentists struggle financially? I would find that difficult to believe considering the limited hours many dentist office's hold in the midwest coupled with the month+ wait time for an appt.
It sounds like you really want the article to not discuss anything beyond anything explicit stated in the paper. I find that an incredibly bizarre desire which strengthens my impression of your comment as bad-faith. Research papers focus on presenting specific findings and data, while institutional communications appropriately discuss broader implications and potential consequences. This isn't misleading, it's how scientific discourse functions, AS INTENDED!
The CO₂ implications you dismiss aren't pulled out the article's author's behind. They come from researchers who understand their data and its significance for carbon cycling. Scientists routinely discuss the wider ramifications of their findings beyond what fits in a technical paper's scope. This is good, not misleading or disinformation.
Labeling this "disinformation" is a smear of what appears to be legitimate scientific interpretation by the researchers themselves. There's a meaningful difference between debating the certainty or magnitude of predicted impacts and dismissing expert analysis as fabrication.