Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    18032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Looked like a lot of room if he catches that.
  2. They promptly forgot.
  3. What can I say, I'm confident.
  4. Gotta catch that Buffalo...
  5. I'm not sure those teams are materially different over the last 5-years. East Carolina generally isn't a bad team. That is a legit opponent.
  6. His facebook is still up if anyone is curious.
  7. Sigh, you still don't understand how to read the graph. The reason you don't see a big story saying "Artic Ice has Rebounded!" is because it hasn't happened. The overall trend is still the same: less and less coverage. You're cherry picking the peak of the winter ice when the yearly variation is more tightly compacted and ignoring the drastic decreases in ice coverage the rest of the year. Rather than focus on a singular point, look at full graph for each year. The trend is clear. Neither 2024 or 2025 or anywhere near the average over the last 50 years. Claiming the artic ice problem over because it is somewhat close during peak winter is like claiming Rice has caught up to Texas football because the scoreboard is always tied 0-0 at the beginning of each new game.
  8. I'm not twisting anything. You said artic ice extent isn't an issue anymore and there weren't stories or articles on it. I posted two sources directly on point saying Artic ice extent is very much an issue and very much still decreasing. 2012 isn't a baseline. It was a record low. The fact that ice recovered partially from a record low doesn't mean the record low, substantially beyond historical mean, wasn't concerning. 2024 wasn't within a few percentage points of "baseline." It was within a few percentage points of a record fucking low. I'm going to post this again because apparently you didn't get it: The redline is the 2012 record minimum. The greenish/blue line is 2024. That big think gray area? That's the fucking historical baseline. 2025 is tracking very closely with 2012 and 2024. If you have a 500-year event every 5-years, it is fair to say you're dealing with a changing system. That's what happening. Your facts were wrong. Your understanding of what you're looking at is non-existent. You're doing exactly what I accused you of doing, being an ignorant slut. And you're doubling down on it.
  9. As per usual, your facts are wrong. The cause of global warming isn't debatable from a scientific standpoint. It is greenhouse emissions from human activity. The arguments you've heard the contrary aren't from folks that actually know what they are talking about, but political bullshit artists. End of story. Artic ice extent is very much still an issue and very much still decreasing: https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/2025-winter-maximum-sea-ice-extent-arctic-smallest-record If you're not seeing articles on this issue, it is because your chosen new sources are ignoring them or actively lying to you.
  10. No. That is just a repeated myth. https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2024/01/26/do-we-use-only-10-percent-of-our-brain/ https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-we-only-use-10-of-our-brains.html
  11. Oh. Good thing lying isn't an issue now.
  12. Are you sure? It has been circulated in traditional media as well. I'm pretty sure this is real deposition testimony.
  13. Objection, facts not in evidence. There is no way this person has any nuts.
  14. You're welcome. I do think there may be a miscommunication here: stable coin is a technical term. I'm now realizing you may have meant stable descriptively rather than intentionally referring to the class of coins that are designed to peg themselves to some reference target (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stablecoin). Mea culpa for any confusion.
  15. You may be following "wickedly smart money," but you don't actually understand what you're talking about. Bitcoin isn't a stable coin. It doesn't try to maintain a value. It fluctuates widely in value (largely by design). You can't actually use it as a currency because there is no way to peg a bitcoin price to anything given the large fluctuations in a single day much less over a longer period of time. But yes, it is fairly easily convertible to dollars. That puts it somewhere between Beanie Babies and actual currency. It is more liquid than the former and less stable than the latter.
  16. I'm not being critical of you. You want to gamble your money, go for it. Right now, the table is paying like crazy. And maybe it keeps paying for a long time. That doesn't change the fact that bitcoin provides 0 real world value. It can't function as a currency. It isn't an independently useful material like gold or silver. Bitcoin's value is tied solely to its scarcity. I question the long-term value of a functionally useless thing that also requires a massive infrastructure and energy investment. For whatever reason it has stuck around and maybe it can live off its own momentum now. But I happen to think it is precisely the sort of thing that can suffer a drastic and sudden price collapse. Until then, make all the money you want. I ain't stopping anyone.
  17. Eh, currency is different. If Bitcoin could function as a currency, it would have value. But it isn't used that way and its volatility makes it unlikely to ever be used as a real currency. Whether it remains a long term store of value remains to be seen I suppose. But I expect the music will stop at some point. No harm in folks making money in the interim.
  18. I think Bitcoin is inherently worthless, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good gamble. I do think the music will stop eventually, but I have no idea when that will be.
  19. If you get 15 minutes warning for a tornado, you're doing really fucking well. No one is evacuating "days before weather arrives." Your entire contribution to this thread has been pure, unadulterated, bullshit. No, it is go to lower ground or even under ground per @Texas Fight
  20. Having a bad, poorly conceived plan is not the same thing as having an actual functional plan. You can have "a plan" and still be negligent. If you don't know what you're arguing, maybe you should stop arguing it.
  21. It seems pretty clear that you don't get the concept. Simple warning systems like this have been used to great effect for a long time. You tie them to dangerous water levels upstream. These can be very predictably modeled to a fairly high degree of precision. Yes, there would have to be some attempt to educate the community on the best course of action. You remember tornado and fire drills in school (now with active shooter drills)? You remember public service announcements on TV? Shit like that works.
  22. Technically, I think it banned greenhouse gas emissions
×
×
  • Create New...