I’m talking about solar, EVs and so on. It’s straight-up cheaper to not use fossil fuels now, for most things, and the remaining ones seem like they’re inevitably coming.

Don’t worry, I’m still pretty doomer about it. The planet’s going to get a bit messed up in the meanwhile, and we’d have just kind of boiled ourselves like a frog, if we hadn’t gotten lucky with cheap renewables suddenly appearing.

Yes. I’m not in line to inherit a fuck-you amount, but it’s substantial, and if I move to a poor country and live modestly I should be able to make it last indefinitely.

I’d invest if I was above the poverty line, income-wise, but I’m not. Downward mobility is a bitch.

The thing is, negotiation is always easier than implementation, which is why it comes before.

It’s pretty clear at this point we’re going to stop climate change right around as fast as technology forces us to. I don’t see any other plausible path.

Second person never has a gender in English. Saying “you” should also be fine, or “thee” if you feel like getting your quaker on.

Special requests notwithstanding - the platinum rule here is just to accommodate whatever you reasonably can.

The Mona Lisa is in the public domain, so no, that’s not really a good analogy for a recently published book.

So basically, they can try to stop you, but you’re allowed to win.

Yeah, that was actually an awkward wording, sorry. What I meant is that given a non-continuous map from the natural numbers to the reals (or any other two sets with infinite but non-matching cardinality), there’s a way to prove it’s not bijective - often the diagonal argument.

For anyone reading and curious, you take advantage of the fact you can choose an independent modification to the output value of the mapping for each input value. In this case, a common choice is the nth decimal digit of the real number corresponding to the input natural number n. By choosing the unused value for each digit - that is, making a new number that’s different from all the used numbers in that one place, at least - you construct a value that must be unused in the set of possible outputs, which is a contradiction (bijective means it’s a one-to-one pairing between the two ends).

Actually, you can go even stronger, and do this for surjective functions. All bijective maps are surjective functions, but surjective functions are allowed to map two or more inputs to the same output as long as every input and output is still used. At that point, you literally just define “A is a smaller set than B” as meaning that you can’t surject A into B. It’s a definition that works for all finite quantities, so why not?

Sort of? I think this was more of a “see, Americans agree, women are shit”.

True, your policies don’t have to make sense if you win.

That being said, this guy runs a fringe party. They have a whole 3 seats in the Diet’s lower house and none whatsoever in the upper.

It’s the same in Australia. Something about the pacific must make parties switch places.

Pfft, he’s doing an amateur job of intimidating, then. It should have been thumbscrews or something. This way seems self defeating.

Yeah, I’m actually hella curious what the context was here. Why would he want any of that?

Sabre rattling, or legit threat?

Their negotiation position within NATO isn’t absolute, so I think the most likely response is the EU agreeing to look at it, and that Trump is smart and handsome, and then mostly doing whatever they were going to do anyway.

Mostly by one other person, who also only speaks in insults. For whatever reason, that’s most of you folks, and I know you tear each other down with even higher efficiency.

Have fun with that. Goodbye.

Yeah, that’s my read too. Even if they mention it in the report, it’s “Israelis attacked” in the headline from a lot of the big sources.

I mean, there’s a peace symbol in the thumbnail, so I’m not sure if it’s even supposed to be a secret.

I legitimately mixed up the two as well, as a kid.

No, that’s not something I’m often accused of. More likely, you’ve just run out of non-insult things to say.

Yes, exactly. I guess you interpret that differently from me. Just like how saying actually Trump is good then sounds then sounds a lot like accelerationism, but apparently wasn’t meant that way.

Again, it was “weep for everyone everywhere”.