See, this right here, I’d have taken that as genuine. Why am I like this?

M. Sc., occasionally published science researcher and post graduate instructor.

On top of missing sarcasm, kids in FPS games razz me for speaking too formally.

There is something wrong with me, lol.

Friends have told me before that I often miss sarcasm.

This person needs some humbling.

If Trump is on probation, can Bannon even associate with him? Typically, you can’t associate with criminals while on probation right?

I love science, this was an interesting read thanks.

Everyone is reporting he won’t see jail time, which in my view is giving the court a pass on giving him a light sentence.

In my opinion, Trump gained so much, and could gain so much from a repeat offense, that jail is the only compelling punishment for him. He is unrepentant, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

As a homeowner who went through rough financial times 15 years ago, yes, YouTube and home depot will save your bacon.

Jawsus!

This sounds safe

People will look me dead in the face and tell me they need the SUV because the kids have hockey practice, I wouldn’t understand. As if my dad didn’t take me to hockey practice in a Toyota Terecel.

If what they’re saying is true, that it looked like they had to use so many resources to support the game it would fundamentally change them into a live services studio from a narrative driven single player studio, then I’m glad they took this decision.

The paper I linked doesn’t look into all possible aspects because it’s a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren’t written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.

The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they’d need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.

If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?

Are you familiar with the concept “the medium is the message”?
For me, it’s a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.

I want to point out that the author of the article you are citing is not an environmental scientist or a climate change expert, but an economist with an interest in the field. The article is not a peer reviewed piece of work, it is more or less equivalent to a blog piece with citations. She is not citing peer reviewed research as far as I can tell, but instead a series of linked ‘studies’ (including drafts and organizational white papers) of questionable scientific value.

After reviewing, I would not be inclined to put much if any stock in her analysis.

Here is a peer reviewed article for nature, that finds BEVs are actually much , much lower in CO2 production even during pre use than ICE vehicles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y#Fig3

I heard a man once say, no shit, no kidding, that he bought his wife the biggest vehicle they could afford because she was a bad driver.

People are arguing with you because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or pay the true cost of their consumption. As long as they see someone worse, they don’t have to do anything. The top 1% make 16% of the emissions, sure. But the top 10% are responsible for 52%. That’s 34% belonging to the 1.1-10% . Much of that is due to transportation (in dumb Suv and trucks), inefficient home heating, aviation, and dirty power generation.

We simply don’t solve this problem by focusing on the top1% alone . Which, like you said, is why carbon taxes should be effective. Especially how Canada did it, with the tax being redistributed to the bottom 90% or so. Unfortunately, bringing in an effective system of carbon taxation just gets you voted out for a science denier.

I swear, if I was the fossil fuel industry this exact kind of class anxiety is what I would exploit to stop progress. Get people paying attention to Taylor Swifts jet so they’ll refuse the systematic changes needed avoid this actual crisis.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

I’ve been using the new GPT feature of ChatGPT to improve my own feedback on student work. If you don’t know, GPT is like a customized, purpose driven ChatBOT. So I set one up with the purpose of evaluating my feedback and recommending ways to improve it. I can provide the GPT with ‘knowledge’ about a topic in the form of word files and PDFs , then as I grade I simply give it my feedback and instantly receive suggestions for improved feedback that are based on my original feedback and the knowledge base.

It’s flawed, and occasionally messes up, but more often than not it improves the quality of feedback a great deal, expanding a 2-3 sentence piece of critical feedback into a 2-3 paragraph piece of critical evaluation, references to the knowledge base and relevant examples of why the students should take the advice.

Anyway, this relates back to the article with the concept of RAG (result augmented generation) , I give the GPT knowledge to work from, and I have found that it still gets it quite wrong, quite often, especially in some use cases. For example, I generated a GPT for creating quiz questions from a knowledge base, and it was wrong more often than the feedback GPT. The feedback GPT is , as this article says, brittle. If I give it multiple students work, or pieces of feedback, it will start confusing them very quickly. Which is notnideal since you want feedback to be customized per student. Once I realized that, it was solvable by simply starting a new instance of the GPT. But any instructors not paying close attention would see feedback meant for one student end up on anothers paper.

Yes, that’s the plan I have.

November last year the plan in CAD went from $17.99 to $22.99 a month, I took that because.i get a lot of use out of it. I haven’t got an email yet but $46 a month will get it cancelled.

Yes, this rubbed me the wrong way. The average person can’t afford a “reasonable” 2 door Wrangler Rubicon.

Miss me with that shit.

Reasonable would have been a Mazda 3 Hatchback for half the price, and 30% better fuel mileage. Don’t like Mazda for some reason? Fine, how about Corolla, Civic HB, Impreza, Elantra, Golf, Forte? Shit, need a mid size? For a bit more you’ve got the Camry, Accord , Sonata, K5.