Re: Yet Another New systemd Feature

On 12/05/2024 11:42, D wrote:

  On Sun, 12 May 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 11/05/2024 20:17, D wrote:

>
>
On Sat, 11 May 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>

On 11/05/2024 10:31, D wrote:

>
>
On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:16:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>

On 09/05/2024 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>
Try telling that to climate change [scientists]...

>
They have evidence. You don’t.
>

>
No they don't. Seriously, they don't. I think you are trapped by the eco-fascist propaganda Lawrence.

>
And that is the problem. There is a conjecture - one of many possible - that purports to explain the 'facts'.
But the problem of induction, means that there are an infinite number of conjectures that could explain the data, even if the data was clean, plentiful  and unambiguous, which it isn't.
And the current conjecture fits the data so badly that its  excused by the fallacious 'precautionary principle' to justify doing stuff that cannot work 'in case' they are in fact right.
>
Another conjecture, that they dont understand how climate works at all, and something else is in play, is simply disregarded, because it doesn't lead to sales of greenCrap™ and research money for academics.
>
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and 'climate scientists' don't vote for 'natural causes'.
>
Nor do the mass of ArtStudents who have leapt on the media bandwagon or the companies that sell greenCrap or the politicians trying to make careers out of it.
>
Its a trillion dollar boondoggle.
>
All based on just one conjecture, that has in fact been demonstrated to be false.
>
A most convenient lie, however.

>
Wow, way more articulate than I usually see. Do you have a blog or something where you expand on your brief summary above?
>

Not really.
>
People don't do 'reason' these days. Its all about 'feelings'
>
And as Roger Scruton remarked, you don't reason people out of positions they weren't reasoned into in the first place.
>
Anti-Vax, anti-nuclear. God is dead, worship Gaia instead. Man is essentially evil and full of sin and technology is his greatest expression of it.

 The furthest I can go to "meet" an eco-fascist is the eco-optimism of Björn Lomborg. He argues that we should not do CO2 taxes and enormous political programs. He argues that we should take a fraction of that money and invest in research to find solution to _clearly defined_ environmental problems and that that will achieve much more than CO2 taxes that are gamed and rigged from the start. I'm sure he and I have many differences of opinion, but I am always open to investing more into research and technology as long as it isn't "gender-science" which is what europe seems to be specializing a lot in. ;)
 And no eco-fascist has been able to tell me how come the earth did not self destruct despite havign 10-20x CO2 in the atmossphere, how come we had 3 km of ice in northern europe and how come the Thames froze over etc. _without CO2_.
 I think it is pretty obvious there are bigger effects causing climate changes, such as _the sun_, instead of a tiny fraction of a fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

Also, honest question, why do you think the precautionary principle is fallacious? I have vague memories from my philosophy studies that someone looked into it, but vague is an overstatement, so can for the life of me not remember.

>
Never get in a car or an aeroplane. You *could* crash.
>
Never strike out for shore when away from the shore, you *could* tire yourself out and drown.
>
Never invent fire, you *could* burn your cave down
>
Never knap flints, you *could* cut yourself.
>
Never eat cereals - you *could* ruin your teeth.
>
Always hang on tight to Nurse
For fear of something even worse.
>
You think that is the correct and appropriate way to behave ?
>
It is monstrously senseless ArtStudent™ invented Luddite philosophy.
Don't use nuclear power, it *could* go bang.
>
Instead condemn us all to death anyway from energy poverty, simply because YOU, the ArtStudent™ dont understand and cannot understand the risk, because your brain only thinks in Boolean concepts = safe/unsafe.
>
Never /how/ safe.
>
It is reactionary kneejerk Leftist stupididity  dressed up in big words to make it seem intellectually justified
>
How about Never let a Muslim into your town - they *could* be a terrorist?

 Oh, but that is not the precautionary principle, that's just silliness.

The precautionary principle IS just silliness.
Wrapped up as solemn religious level gobshite

So you are saying that in serious discussions, your examples above are used, not as jokes, but as serious arguments?
 

No, I am saying that in the case of climate change the precautionary principle is used instead of serious arguments

I'm very happy I've left the arena of democratic debates and discussions behind in middle age. ;) I have no patience for people who seriously think the way you illustrate above.

Hard to avoid the Doom pixie and her ilk
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Stupid.jpg
--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.”
Vaclav Klaus