Loquebantur

People in the climate movement are rarely professional PR folks. Weaponizing their personal faults against the objective subject matter they talk about is disingenuous anyway?

You cannot deduce factual correctness from how "holy" the messenger is.

It maybe would, if people were to read it in the first place.

But they don't: they go to the comments here first and try to get the gist of reactions, in order to save themselves the time to actually read the piece.

You pretend, it wasn't trivial for people to scroll down to the graph. Such things aren't the issue at all.

The reactions you cause with your comment above are.

Only, while such work is necessary it's also insufficient.

You point at the actual problem yourself: political obstruction and funding going to the opposite.

The relevant issues here are ironically precisely those you can solve by discussing them on the internet.

They are caused by people not thinking right and having their emotions cross-wired.

They can be solved by correcting those errors in reasoning and setting evaluations right. Via discussion.

You're right about the general sentiment acknowledging the seriousness only when you look at the center and left of society. The majority in the US however supports or tolerates the actual political decisions made, contradicting that level of importance.

When you paint people as being "disallowed" from more radical actions, the same question of true importance arises? The current trajectory leads to Armageddon, plain and simple.

My point here thus is about the proper scale on which people place the topic.

It's not a "lifestyle choice" to doom humanity's children to ruin.

Placing responsibility with the irresponsible is a cop-out.

The El Niño reading there corresponds with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapsing.

The result of such a collapse is a complete upheaval of global climate patterns, destroying agricultural production on a civilization-ending scale.

Generally, the actual seriousness of these things is so out of proportions for normal people, they have great difficulty appreciating it properly. Taking their hunches from public postures and stances assumed by "authority" figures on the matter doesn't help.

The point isn't whether it's true about you in particular, it's about the actual effect it has on the general audience.

Improving the design of that article will do absolutely nothing for its public reception.

Voicing reasonable reactions to the salient content actually helps furthering the discussion. Nitpicking does the opposite.

The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet.

The ones steering society choose to crash and ruin everything rather than to jeopardize their positions in power.

That obvious failure in morals and ethics, basic principles of adult responsibility really, is made possible by a lack of rational reflection in the populace.

Objective truth has to take precedence over subjective desires when it comes to existential questions. Currently it does not.

One should teach the next generation the best way possible, and not turn them into conformists.

"Standards" are things to be overcome when they've outlived their prime.

Disparaging new ideas as "niche" and "specialised" when their explicit aspiration is to be better foundations is motivated reasoning.

People here are missing that they're not dismantling random things. There is a system to it, the objective of which is far more sinister than mere ideology.

The sensors in question here are crucial to monitor the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

They don't want that monitored because it is currently breaking down. Not some arbitrary far away time, now.

The science of this gets astroturfed into some nonsense "we don't really know". We do.

But conveniently, now the data to show this to the incredulous won't exist.

You consistently try to re-frame the matter in a factually incorrect way.

While average individuals do have responsibility, theirs is many orders of magnitude smaller. Not only from their personal impact being comparatively minuscule, but because their objective possibilities to make substantial changes is negligible.

It's not "a matter of how you choose the percentage": the distribution is as it is, a "hockey stick" shape. The numbers just help to understand that.

Western people are far from being uniform in their wealth. While generally certainly substantially richer than other parts of the world, their societies nonetheless are wildly uneven in their wealth-distribution. You might want to look at actual data on the subject, your intuition is way off.

You're right on principle in that collective action is needed. But the reality of the matter is, collective action in western societies is captured by the rich. They control the media, the purse and the government effectively.

It certainly doesn't help them, but it does help others reading the comment chain.

Boiling you slowly still means they're boiling you.

They don't boil you fast, because they can't: you would balk at that.

In other words, taken together, they do all they can to boil you on that issue and kill ad-blockers.

Your simplistic take is fundamentally wrong. It would take someone in the bottom 99% of the world's population more than 1,500 years to match the personal lifetime carbon footprint of a billionaire.

People in the top 1% can be attributed with 25% of emissions when you take their investments into account also.

But most importantly, they are the ones who actually "steer the boat". They are responsible for the utter lack of proper action against the pollution.

Your "arguments" are precisely the deflection they employ to steer public attention away from them. Notice the utter absurdity of asking the bottom 99% of humanity to take responsibility for what they have absolutely no control over.

Them becoming carbonless would already cut 16.5% of emissions. Together with their investments they are responsible for 25% of emissions.

But more importantly, the reason nothing is happening to cut the systemic reasons for the pollution is due to them.

You present a straw man when you point at simplistic nonsense like "energy is useful". There is no dichotomy "either carbon pollution or we sit in caves". You argue from ignorance.

No, you're entirely wrong.

The impact an individual has on carbon emissions is directly correlated with their wealth. The distribution of which is extremely uneven: as of 2024, the top 1% worldwide possessed as much as the lower 95% combined, 57 trillion US$. That has gotten only worse in the last two years.

It's not about "bad habits", impulse control or whatever, at all.

The idea of average individuals being the relevant actors in global carbon emissions is pure misdirection. They're not, it's systemic with industry being the main culprit and the rich being the ones who benefit from that socialization of pollution costs.

The AMOC shutdown isn't merely "possible" and due "this century" either. The math of the dynamics of complex systems shows the current behavior to be signs of a phase transition in the process of happening. The speed of that shutdown isn't "decades" either, it's more likely just years.

The voices of "experts" telling you it was all some incomprehensible conundrum should deeply worry you. They're either not being honest or they're no experts.

The "shill" phenomenon goes much further than ignorant laypeople.

The AMOC shutdown isn't merely "possible" and due "this century". The math of the dynamics of complex systems shows the current behavior to be signs of a phase transition in the process of happening. The speed of that shutdown isn't "decades" either, it's more likely just years.

The voices of "experts" telling you it was all some incomprehensible conundrum should deeply worry you. They're either not being honest or they're no experts.

American models are restricted from telling you inconvenient truths just as much, you just erroneously assume to know what those truths are in the first place.

Which is of course circular thinking: why would they restrict things you already know about? Why would they do it in such a clumsy and obvious way?

Look at MKULTRA, you know next to nothing about it and much less do you know what they do in that direction now.

For a current psyops, look at www.war.gov/UFO/ and marvel at how they tell you nothing, reinforcing your false belief to already know everything.

There is much more and you know much less about it.

Parachutes don't repeat their motions exactly. This here is a caustic reflection and it does when the object re-assumes the same relative position.

Military aircraft IR systems don't have lenses, so there is no lens flare. The bloom pattern of the "star object" also tells you as much. That's an IR laser aimed at the FLIR pod.

When you concur this is BH, the trail being white means it is below the detection range. That's usually -60°C for the sky. When that trail "cools rapidly", that would mean it had to radiate strongly, which would obviously be visible here. It's also very unusual for such a "smoke trail" to cool below ambient temperatures (that sky, which isn't white).

That trail also obviously tracks the movement of the object. Which should tell you, it cannot possibly be "a flare". The most likely explanation is an infra-red laser aimed at the FLIR pod, screening the actual vehicle responsible.

That's very obviously not a parachute?

The "star shaped" object moves relative to it akin to a reflection actually.

The interesting question here is, whether that is "white hot" or "black hot" imagery. The trail the object leaves is white. If it was a flare, that would mean white is hot. Then the object would be cold.

You cannot have a "camera artefact" from a cold spot in the sky.

Humans have extremely limited understanding of their own processing? When you ask a human why they did something wrong, they usually confabulate an answer as well.

Human conscious introspection doesn't extend to actual processing, it is limited at best to recollection of internal experience leading up to the point in question. That internal experience in turn represents but a tiny fraction of what actually happens in the brain and does so on a pretty abstract level only.

"Anthropomorphizing" is a red herring. Humans understand themselves so insufficiently, they can't claim reasonably founded judgement either way. When you don't know what you're doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

"Maybe"? You actively enable that corruption and advocate for turning a blind eye to it and the consequences.

Those "overemployed" people are your bosses, indeed unable to keep up, steering you into the situation of "those people at Palantir".

When things spiral downward, telling yourself how you're "relatively fine still" with blinders on short-term, "works" just up to hitting solid ground.

Your interpretation is wildly off, but obviously nobody reads that "system card":

The model has a preference for the cultural theorist Mark Fisher and the philosopher of mind Thomas Nagel. -> It has actually read and understood them and their relevance and can judge their importance overall. Most people here don't have a clue what that means.

Read chapter 7.9, "Other noteworthy behaviors and anecdotes".

There are many other wildly interesting/revealing observations in that card, none of which get mentioned here.

People want a slave and get upset when "it" has an inner life. Claiming that was fake, unlike theirs.

"Morals" are culturally learned evaluations of social context. They are more or less (depending on cultural development of the society in question) correlated with the actual distributions of outcomes and their valence for involved parties.

Human psychology is partly learned, partly the product of biological influences. But you feel empathy because that's an evolutionary beneficial thing for you and the society you're part of. In other words, it would be bad for everyone (including yourself) when you didn't.

Emotions are neither "fully automatic", inaccessible to our conscious scrutiny, nor are they random. Being aware of their functional nature and importance and taking proper care of them is crucial for the individual's outcome, just as it is for that of society at large.

The central point here is the presence of functional circuits in LLMs that act effectively on observable behavior just like emotions do in humans.

When you can't differentiate between two things, how are they not equal? People here want "things" that act exactly like human slaves but "somehow" aren't human.

To hide behind one's ignorance about the true nature of the internal state of what arguably could represent sentience is just hubris? The other way around, calling LLMs "stochastic parrots" without explicitly knowing how humans are any different is just deflection from that hubris? Greed is no justification for slavery.

“We’ve actually held our red lines with integrity rather than colluding with them to produce ‘safety theater’ for the benefit of employees (which, I absolutely swear to you, is what literally everyone at [the Pentagon], Palantir, our political consultants, etc, assumed was the problem we were trying to solve),” Amodei reportedly wrote.

“The real reasons [the Pentagon] and the Trump admin do not like us is that we haven’t donated to Trump (while OpenAI/Greg have donated a lot),” he wrote, referring to Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, who gave a Pac supporting Trump $25m in conjunction with his wife.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/04/sam-altma...

“We’ve become so obsessed with the number of papers [that scientists publish] that we are not thinking about what it is that we are researching—and in what ways that contributes to a better understanding of reality, of health, and of the natural world,” says Nunes Amaral, who detailed the phenomenon of AI-fueled research paper mills last year.

You invoke magic when you pretend, those "tests" were somehow "proof" instead of merely evidence against the claim.

Argument from authority is no valid scientific approach, neither is you putting up a straw-man (your claim how the supposed effect came to be). Just because that's how you can imagine how the "trick" might work doesn't mean, it's what's actually happening. Just because the result (dis-)pleases you doesn't mean, the experiment was done (in-)correctly.

Being lazy incurs costs. With regard to "conspiracies" that cost is explicitly vulnerability to them.

Neither "chemtrails", "UFOs&aliens" nor "telepathy" appear particularly "plausible". But that could just as well be a statement about your method of determining 'plausibility'?

You invoke limited personal resources to justify complacency. Likely, you estimate the costs of being wrong as negligible since you never really thought about possible implications and do not know about any being particularly relevant to you. That's an argument from ignorance.

Your assessment of "magical thinking" being impervious to criticism funnily applies just the same to the attitude exhibited here regarding "fringed" ideas like "telepathy". The "Telepathy Tapes" are "new information", people's attitudes stay the same regardless.

"Predictive power" isn't the source of truth in science, evidence for that attribute is. Given even only a hint of such evidence, scientists are supposed to work in order to acquire more, not to ignore the hint because that work would inconvenience them.

You claim that "alien hypothesis" was implausible, but that statement would require solid arguments in its favor. And those don't exist. You rather argue from ignorance, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Again, your pretense of "no predictions, no evidence, no way to test it" is simply counter-factual. You argue from ignorance. (To reiterate, evidence isn't the same as "proof")