If Uber increased surge pricing they would be accused of trying to make more money off of the protest. It would probably be a worse PR disaster than removing surge pricing
>Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary:
http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg
Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12.
That said, I agree with your general message about turnout.
>The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked.
[citation needed].
The MSM needs some repair, but I'd say that repair should be moving away from the "both sides do it" and "two sides to every argument" mentality and delivering the truth. On issues like climate change, equal weight does not need to be given to the "it's a hoax" crowd.
Sadly, Glenn Greenwald's interactions with Sam Harris have severely tarnished his credibility as a champion of objectivity in my eyes. Harris has a weakness in that he's very good at putting out content that's easy to cherry-pick in an uncharitable way, and this is what Greenwald seems to do every single time.
Lying by omission is still technically truthful, how can you reconcile your proposition with the fact that the MSM clearly downplayed Clinton's shortcomings while highlighting Trump's at every moment?
Maybe Clinton's shortcoming was her choice of E-Mail provider while Trump is, indisputably, a proto-fascist?
I mean, it's now admitted fact the Russian government tried to influence the election with the leaks, other hacks and a myriad other ways that must have had a significant effect.
Can you imagine what Breitbart et al would have written if Obama 2012 had been elected with help from Russia?
Why not? The science is far from settled. In much the same way that the media leans left, so does academia. Academia is not immune from corruption, and dare I say, academia is a worse swamp than Washington.
When 99% of the academics agree on something, you could say the science is more-or-less settled. If you disagree, the onus is on you to come up with the evidence/theory to challenge it. Just claiming that "science is far from settled" doesn't make it so; you might as well claim that the "science is far from settled" on the Earth not being flat.
I said nothing. I was just saying that if you want to go against scientific consensus, the onus is on you to provide proof! You can't just say "I disagree with them, so they must be wrong". It doesn't work that way.
This is how science works: there's a current understanding of the world; and if you want to change that, you have to come up with the counterexamples or other scientific evidence to back up your claim. You can't just stick your head in the sand and say that since I don't believe these guys, they must be wrong.
You are correct that appeal-to-authority arguments are inherently weak but it doesn't change the fact that his hand-wavy "it's not settled!" argument is even weaker.
To take your remark about doctor's a century earlier, germ theory was met with derision[1] :
> [...] Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands, feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.
Sometimes prevailing wisdom is discountable but sometimes it's not.
On the other hand, I think there are some facts on climate change that are hard to deny. We have actual data points of past weather patterns from various weather stations. We have observed various climate effects (glaciers disappearing, ice fields thinning, etc.).
I think it could be said that it is a fact that the Earth has warmed significantly over the past century. I think the evidence suggests that the trendline is atypical of normal patterns. I wouldn't call the trendline abnormality a fact at this point, but I think the evidence is very strong.
If someone had a conclusion was "the Earth is warming but I'm not sure humans are the cause", I would say that's fine. It recognizes the facts and strong trendlines above. It goes against consensus, but if they had some interesting data to go with their doubt, I would hope this analysis would be welcome.
"Global warming is a hoax!" type statements on the other hand tends to be completely dismissive sometimes of even the facts we have.
When any sign of disagreement with the agw cult results in swift, abrupt and pretty much permament death of ones career then it is no wonder that not many people do that.
Ive had a few chances to personally speak with some scientists and they were not 99% sure what is happening
Yeah, well, the General Theory of Relativity doesn't predict the motions of galaxies very well (without dark matter), and is not compatible with quantum mechanics. But try getting GPS to work without it.
The incompatibility of QFT and GR is a theoretical incompatibility. Practically, however, GR is perfectly compatible with quantum mechanics right to the limit of strong gravity, which can only find inside black hole event horizons (and in particular at and very near the singularity), and in the very early universe.
In GR terms, strong gravity is where the uncertainty in position of field quanta sources an impossible gravitational field; this is only measurable when the energy-density is non-negligible and that requires enormous quantum numbers. In quantum field theory terms, the (general, not just electromagnetic) charge of a particle and its energy are separate quantities except for the gravitational charge of a particle, which is its energy. Because the gravitational interaction is so weak, this only matters when particle energies are very high (on Feynman diagrams, this means more than one loop of gravitons; while gravitons are massless they do carry momentum, and thus have energy, and thus gravitational charge).
The clocks in GPS satellites all rely on quantum effects, and those effects that run faster further from the Earth than they did closer to the Earth prior to launch. GNSS applications, as well as atomic clocks on spacecraft scattered around the solar system, are ongoing tests of the validity of this prediction of GR.
It is precisely because General Relativity is an effective field theory (in the Kenneth G Wilson sense of effective) in all presently accessible regimes, and has so far survived every test -- direct and indirect -- that it is extremely hard to arrive at an explanation for the effects of gravity pointing the wrong way other than non-luminous, transparent matter rather than a different theory of gravity.
It's sad to see that climate-deniers are still pushing their agenda when the facts so plainly speak for themselves.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, science is rarely settled. That is what makes it science, evidence is provided and notions are challenged -- indisputable axioms are very rare. Nevertheless we can still point to the results of rigorous studies and accept that their weight is enough to arrive at a reasonable assumption that global warming is real and it's not going away.
Yes we are in a mass-extinction event, but no that is not because of climate change. Rather it is because we are destroying habitats left and right through deforestation, pollution, etc. Climate change is happening at such a slow glacial pace; I haven't seen any good data to suggest that the Climate is changing fast enough to produce harm.
I was hoping that the first part would have an explainer to justify the mention of the GF. Something like, "My girlfriend is not a programmer and has never taken computer science classes. The following drawing are what I used to explain ML to her."
