> This is a claim about the future which the science does not support
There is scientific consensus that +5C is a doomsday scenario. Civilization ending. This isn't my prediction, this is the scientific consensus. And obviously it's not like +3C or +4C is a walk in the park either. We will be close to +5C within this century unless something changes drastically.
That's not a prediction that's a projection, just like if you're driving your car at 100 miles per hour then in an hour you will be 100 miles ahead. The difference is when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions we do not have a brake pedal and there is no friction. We can't take back the carbon. The only thing we can do, and the only thing we are doing, is accelerate. And on top of that, we're going downhill - we're accelerating whether we want to or not. And it's getting steeper the further we go.
Ice reflects an enormous amount of energy back into space, as the amount of ice drops the amount of heat absorbed by the planet increases. On top of that, the ice traps enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. In the poles and previously permafrozen tundras that are now thawing. As the atmosphere heats up it is capable of holding more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas. Warmer temperatures also lead to forest fires, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases and weakening one of the few ways we're actually removing some carbon from the air.
These are some of the feedback loops in play causing warming to rise exponentially the worse it gets.
> Nobody can know at all. We're talking about predicting the future.
Scientists predicted the future 50 years ago and we are right on track for those predictions. 50 years ago they said this is where we will be in 50 years, and here we are. Now you're like "but we can't predict the future" well we did. And to top if off you're waxing about how powerful we are - apparently not powerful enough to predict global warming, but powerful enough to stop it? When? Why aren't we doing it then if we're so powerful? Why are we just making it worse instead?
The difference between the problems you listed and climate change is that those problems are solvable. That's why we've solved them. They're also not nearly the same scale as climate change which is apocalyptic. You just cherry picked a few things we've solved and ignored the plethora of things we haven't as if that proves anything at all. How about cancer? All the other diseases we can't cure? Most of the world still lives in extreme poverty. Lots of people starve every day. Russia is bombing Ukraine. Meanwhile everyone's bickering about data centers and ram prices.
Climate change is not solvable. There is no solution. The only thing I know of that we might be able to do is spray enormous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere hoping to block the sunlight. This might backfire spectacularly, also might not even work. It's a hail Mary we'll probably try when things get bad enough.
That's it. That's the only idea we have that might help. Maybe there's others I don't know about, but they're not good or we would be doing them already. Carbon capture is a joke, it will never make a difference. We would need a million carbon capture plants, we can't build a million capture plants.
Even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 today we would be completely fucked, and we're not doing that we are in fact producing more CO2 every year. That will probably change eventually but it's already too late.
Obviously nobody can know for sure, maybe we will get lucky and someone will come up with a genius plan that actually works. But that's far from guaranteed, as far as we know right now it's impossible so just assuming that's going to change is extremely naive. It's a thin sliver of hope it's not what we should be expecting nor relying on.
We have no good solution, and given the scale of the problem we have almost no hope of finding one. Do you understand how much atmosphere there is? We've been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can for centuries, now we are finally seeing the result of that and it's so slow that lots of people still don't believe it's happening. It's way harder to reverse.
Also, ice. Ice is important. Ice reflects sunlight and essentially stores cold. Less ice means more heat. More heat means less ice. Do you understand how long it's taken to build the amount of ice on the planet? Absolutely no amount of terraforming will rebuild the ice we're losing and have lost, not in thousands of years.
In not talking about baseless predictions. I'm talking about science. This is not speculation, it's not a possible future scenario, this is the world we currently live in and the trajectory we know for a fact that it is taking. We're setting heat records literally every year. All over the world. The polar ice caps, Greenland etc are melting rapidly, this is not speculation these are facts, these are things currently happening.
We know how much ice is on land, people have spent decades drilling the ice and calculating it's volume etc, we know it's melting because there's way less of it now than there was just decades ago and we know how much that melted ice will influence water levels.
We know the effect greenhouse gases have on the atmosphere and global temperatures, people have made scientifically informed charts predicting how the temperature will rise decades ago and we are right on track.
The prediction happened when I was a child, and all my life I've watched the prediction come true. The fact that there's still millions if not billions of people out there who are living through the same situation and still think climate change is a hoax is absolutely baffling to me. Just look at a fucking global average temperature chart for the past few decades holy shit man it's not a secret the planet is cooking. It's not maybe going to cook 500 years from now it's cooking right now and it's getting worse every year how can you possibly look at these simple clear facts and not understand that it's going to continue?
You guys annoy me so much holy shit open your eyes and just look at the world we live in
I imagine that 100 years from now(or significantly less than that) the ocean water level will be several meters higher, large parts of the world will be unliveable due to heat waves and wars will be fought over food and water. I doubt our species will last another 1000.
> make a draconian law that forces all electronic devices to run approved software only
That would outlaw programming. It's just not feasible at all, anyone with any kind of tech literacy understands that encryption is here to stay. It's also necessary for the web to function at all for the things we use it for, such as banking.
There is no way to prevent people from communicating in secret. Even if they did strictly control digital communication people would just communicate some other way.
How else do you help people learn if not by giving feedback? As an avid helper in a programming related discord channel I need you to understand that a lot of the people who come to these places for help are incredibly stupid. It's not uncommon to have to converse with a person for 15+ minutes just to get them to give you enough information to understand what their problem is. Like they will just paste an error message or a big incomplete block of code and say "help". What are you trying to do? What isn't working? How is it not working?
They don't understand that we need information to help them. They will get offended when you ask them to elaborate. They won't understand the answer no matter how much you simplify it. They just want their problem solved with the least possible amount of effort on their part.
We're not space faring. We just put up satellites. There's nothing for us outside of the earth. It would take months of travel just to get to the useless barren wasteland that is Mars.
Maybe some day we'll be mining asteroids near Earth or something. Maybe we'll mine the moon. Going to/living on different planets is pretty much science fiction though. It's hard enough to live on the earth, it's gonna be 1000 times harder to live anywhere else.
I'd say who you really are is whoever you really are. If you're acting like a dick then you really are a dick, I don't care whether your financial situation influences your behavior.
Had a similar experience. Was at a party when I suddenly received a notification from our country's equivalent to cashapp/Venmo. It was about $450, so not a lot but enough to be significant to many people. About a minute later I get a call from a seemingly young man who's very stressed telling me he sent the money to the wrong number and asking me to send it back. I told him don't worry I'll get your money back but I need to contact customer service first just to make sure it's safe for me to do so. I wanted to avoid some kind of charge back scam or similar.
So I called CS, they said it was safe to return the money and so I did and the guy called back just to thank me.
Thanks for the detailed reply. This still seems ridiculous to me though:
> [..] generally, when a mechanics lien is filed after the sale of the property, a mechanics lien may still be able to attach to the project property as long as the other requirements for the lien claim were still followed.
Just why? The whole point of a lien is to be able to sell the house to raise money to pay the debt. The house is sold so now he can pay the debt. If he had so many debts that he's still underwater then the lien wouldn't have made a difference anyway, as the older debts would have to be paid first.
The way I understand this, the homeowner entered a contract with a mechanic allowing the mechanic to put a lien on the property to secure the debt for the mechanic's work. Then he sold the property before they did so. It seems to me there are now a couple reasonable courses of action:
Force the homeowner to pay the debt as it is no longer secured, or they could offer up something else as collateral for the debt.
It makes no sense to make the new homeowners pay for the repairs for some stranger's car. That's just wrong. The only way it could possibly make sense is if they explicitly agreed to take over the debt as part of the sale. Clearly this isn't how it works in the real world, I'm just baffled at how stupid the real world is. This seems so easy to fix. The only explanation I can come up with is the insurance companies lobby to keep it this way because they make a fortune selling title insurance that doesn't even need to exist.
Yeah I don't have a problem with liens, I have a problem with unregistered liens. There needs to be a system for registering and searching liens, it needs to be publicly accessible and the lien needs to be registered before it's valid. In order to register a lien on a car you need the owner's signature, that can't work when the owner has changed. Mechanic needs to get the contract signed then report the new lien to wherever it should be reported, and once that's all in order they can start working on the vehicle.
If they try to register their lien once the owner of the vehicle has changed, it can not be accepted. You can't secure debt with a vehicle you no longer own. The lender needs to make sure the person owns the car and register the debt while they still own the car. And if they sell the car then they have money to pay the debt, and since they no longer own the car then their debt is no longer secured so that should trigger a requirement to pay the debt per the loan contract. Debt should be owned by people not objects.
The whole concept of debt that's attached to objects is silly. It can make sense in certain situations like a housing association that's taking up a shared loan and paying it down as part of shared monthly expenses, but for a car repair or similar it makes no sense. The person who takes the debt is responsible for the debt. If they sell the car then they pay the debt with the money from the sale, if the sale doesn't cover the debt then they still owe the rest.
It does not need to be any more complicated than this. In order for anyone to take over responsibility for debt in relation to a purchase, there needs to be explicit written and signed consent. So - I can buy a house including some debt if I know and agree to it, but I can't unwittingly buy a landmine. If the owner fails to resolve their debts when they sell that should be their problem not the buyer's. It's up to the bank to collect their debts from the person they have a contract with.
It's crazy how this isn't simple. Surely all they have to do is to tally up the debts secured by the apartment, then sell the apartment and use the money to pay as much of the debts as possible. Any remaining debt is the lender's loss, that's the risk they take when giving out loans.
If any debt does need to be tied to the apartment rather than the person, then it simply needs to be registered in a publicly (easily) accessible way. If someone fails to register their debt in a timely manner then it should be forfeit. It should be registered at the time it takes effect. Lender should be responsible for making sure the registration is complete before giving out the debt, if someone takes out a loan then sells it before the debt has been registered that's the lender's problem. They can't retroactively add a lien to my property because the previous owner took a loan when it was their property. That's not reasonable. If the lien is not registered then it doesn't exist, it should be that simple.
> In practice, maybe some roofer/plumber/landscaper forgot to do that and now you have a problem you didn't know you had
Seems to me like this should be the contractor's problem. If they did the job 2 weeks ago fine, but if they come along 6+ months later after the house is sold demanding payment from the new owner that seems ridiculous to me. Surely if these Liens are supposed to be public there needs to be a requirement that they are registered as soon as possible.
Otherwise it seems to me like this is a ripe opportunity for scams. Buy house, have contractors refurbish it, sell it for a much higher value, then the contractors register their debts and now the new buyers or their insurance is on the hook for the refurbishment.