It wouldn't have worked. You'd never have gotten every single last case and then the exponential growth would have started again. Or, if that had somehow magically worked, the virus would have come back from outside.

There were no simple solutions.

This is a good read: https://ourworldindata.org/un-population-2024-revision

The new estimated global peak population is 10.3B in 2084. But now, looking at the break down by region, you may be talking about North America? That graph looks wildly 3rd world... If you edit the graph to show US and Nigeria's 2024 projections side by side it's samepicture.jpg

Go home Clippy, you're drunk

"Algorithmic timeline" might be appropriately specific?

A geron

We live in a post-truthiness world. Nobody cares any more if the lies seem plausible.

I rode from the UK to northern Italy with nothing but an early hiking go's unit that had no map. Just an arrow pointing to Torino. The trip over the Alps was very random.

Just lie and then do it anyway. It worked to corrupt SCOTUS, it should work here.

How can there not be number to this "stark drop"? Or is this literally "decimated" and it's down 10%?

E:had dropped the "not"

No. That's an increase of 129% to 229% of the original price.

You are right that you always use the original price as the base, but if it were still $7 that would be a 0% increase, not 100% as by your math.

SpaceX has one viable product

Two. I can't even figure out whether you're ignoring Starlink or their space launch business. But yeah, the Elonville on Mars obsession makes about as much sense as the Cybertruck.

Aix-en-Provence: Hold my rosé

Or are FlyingSquid a collective consciousness wielding more limbs for typing than any singular human?

The worst effects of climate change haven't happened yet so I guess that isn't true either and you'll go off at anyone who'll attempt to use the best available information and modelling to predict that.

The US is a net exporter of oil. Has been for years.

You really should read the article. The hypothesis is that global emissions peaked last year and so the cumulative emissions graph that you're focusing on would start to curve downward this year or maybe next. We'll "see by the end of the year".

Again, in the article, things are changing wildly fast and you won't see that yet in a lagging indicator like cumulative CO₂.

There you go conflating Jews and Israel. Apart from that you have an arguable point.

No, please don't split the vote against FPTP. That's how you get more FPTP.

Probability is useful because it can make predictions that can be tested against reality.

Yes. But you'd have to run the test repeatedly and see if the outcome, i.e. Clinton winning, happens as often as the model predicts.

But we only get to run an election once. And there is no guarantee that the most likely outcome will happen on the first try.

Really, we should create incentives for homes to be built with high thermal mass. Even without any sort of fancy direct heating or cooling of a thermal mass, it will store significant heat.

Welcome to traditional housing in Italy and probably elsewhere in the Mediterranean region. Thick stone walls even out the temperature swings through the day. Throw open the windows when the temperature is comfortable and close up when it gets too hot or cold depending on the season. This gets you quite far without any air-conditioning or heating.