I seen a film like that before. It wasn't my thing but I guess some people really really like cars...
https://deadline.com/2023/07/actors-equity-sag-aftra-strike-avoid-breaking-kate-shindle-1235438177/
Equity President Says “The Other Side Will Try To Pit Us Against Each Other”
The job of an "equity president" is literally putting people against each other. It's right there in the name. *oh, bob is better at acting that's so unfair!* *Oh Jane has a PhD in filmography but why does she make more money than me?*
Equity President Says “The Other Side Will Try To Pit Us Against Each Other”
The job of an "equity president" is literally putting people against each other. It's right there in the name. *oh, bob is better at acting that's so unfair!* *Oh Jane has a PhD in filmography but why does she make more money than me?*
On one hand, Bud Light is down to 14th place from 1st place in sales. On the other, Mike Lindell is selling factory equipment because his company got canceled so bad.
You know, I'm pretty OK if companies just get tf out of politics. I don't want to have to think about what brand of pillow or running shoe or beer or whatever says about who I'd vote for in a general election. It's hard enough choosing the best product for the best price without adding an entire arbitrary dimension on top of that.
You know, I'm pretty OK if companies just get tf out of politics. I don't want to have to think about what brand of pillow or running shoe or beer or whatever says about who I'd vote for in a general election. It's hard enough choosing the best product for the best price without adding an entire arbitrary dimension on top of that.
Those are rookie numbers. You need to be killing at least 2 people before lunch every day.
Opposition to what the activists are doing right now is not only not anti-lgbt as a whole, it's pro-lgbt in the long term.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
A problem with being homeless specifically is that it's usually not just a resource problem. Often there's a much bigger and sadder story that means throwing money at the person won't help necessarily.
I feel like anyone who can't even comprehend of why people might follow commandments they believe were handed down by God (allegorically in the story of Lot and the city of Sodom and Gomorrah) in the perfect book of the Quran is seriously lacking in cognition.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.
Sun Tzu says that the victorious general seeks victory first then fights the battles required, while the defeated general seeks battle first then tries to seek victory.
The whole "We need to do something!" without regard to the consequences of those somethings is fighting first and seeking victory second.
People are not going to willingly die terrible deaths of exposure or starvation to fight climate change. Any plan that doesn't account for this is doomed to fail. If you're not careful, not only will protecting against climate change fail, but the backlash will result in a new regime will be actively against doing anything about it because of the sour taste in people's mouths. We've already seen regime change in several parts of the world over climate change policies (among other things, it's always complicated). It can happen here, and it will happen here if someone has a negative consequence.
Another thing about not looking for victory first is that we get somethings that are just accounting tricks. For example, we stop manufacturing things in the west because that uses carbon, but then we just get the Chinese to manufacture it for us using less environmentally friendly practices but it doesn't matter since at least we're not emitting them.
I do believe we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as an obvious thing. Even if climate change was a total scam, fossil fuels are a limited resource and we'd like to be a human race that lasts longer than fossil fuels.
Some things we need to get in order to successfully reduce fossil fuel usage:
1. People are not willing to die for climate change policies. Maybe you are, but the masses are not. If you try to kill them, they will fight you and they will win. Proposed solutions need to actually work.
2. We require industrial-scale power generation in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This is for a couple reasons. First, because a lot of energy is required, not optional. Depending on the location, people need to heat their homes in winter and cool their homes in summer. Second, because we need enough energy to keep prices low -- People will happily switch from natural gas furnaces to electric if it means their energy bill is cut in half, and will switch from electric to fossil fuels if the same is true. I saw this personally where I live, where people used to be able to heat their homes with renewable hydroelectricity, but mismanagement of the power system caused electricity prices to skyrocket, so many people had to switch to fossil fuels or face heating bills that looked like mortgage payments.
3. All industrial-scale power generation causes environmental damage. Solar panels, wind, hydroelectric, everything. We're not going to end environmental degradation in this journey, we're just trying to limit it in the long term.
4. "Someday we hope this works" is battle without victory. Betting on unproven technologies isn't a winning strategy.
5. All environmentalism is local. There is no once size fits all solution and anyone trying to say otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. Hydroelectric won't work in the Mojave desert, and solar won't work in the Arctic.
So here's my proposals:
1. There's lots of untapped hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world. In Canada, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all run almost entirely off of hydroelectric, and the other provinces could too if there was the will and the money. Russia is huge and I'm certain it has massive untapped potential for hydroelectricity. If these regions can take advantage of hydroelectricity, not only can they become carbon neutral, but these are proven technologies that have been heating and lighting homes for a century. We know hydroelectric works, and it works in places that aren't good for solar. Manitoba's hydroelectric dams are around Gillam, which is further north than 99% of people in Canada have ever even been, even to visit.
2. Once we have lots of power, we should start looking at motive technologies from a century ago. Electric streetcars or trackless electric trolleys existed long ago and didn't require new battery technologies to function. They took much less maintenance for the vehicles than ICE buses, and they wouldn't have to carry massive chemical batteries that would themselves need to be replaced periodically. We know they work, and they work in places that are very difficult to do battery electric such as the far north.
3. We need to get fission figured out. Semiportable power is a requirement for society to run, and right now as I write this there's diesel, natural gas, or propane generators running 24/7 in places that brag about being 100% renewable because you can't get a power line everywhere.
Anyway, tl;dr nobody asked. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
The whole "We need to do something!" without regard to the consequences of those somethings is fighting first and seeking victory second.
People are not going to willingly die terrible deaths of exposure or starvation to fight climate change. Any plan that doesn't account for this is doomed to fail. If you're not careful, not only will protecting against climate change fail, but the backlash will result in a new regime will be actively against doing anything about it because of the sour taste in people's mouths. We've already seen regime change in several parts of the world over climate change policies (among other things, it's always complicated). It can happen here, and it will happen here if someone has a negative consequence.
Another thing about not looking for victory first is that we get somethings that are just accounting tricks. For example, we stop manufacturing things in the west because that uses carbon, but then we just get the Chinese to manufacture it for us using less environmentally friendly practices but it doesn't matter since at least we're not emitting them.
I do believe we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as an obvious thing. Even if climate change was a total scam, fossil fuels are a limited resource and we'd like to be a human race that lasts longer than fossil fuels.
Some things we need to get in order to successfully reduce fossil fuel usage:
1. People are not willing to die for climate change policies. Maybe you are, but the masses are not. If you try to kill them, they will fight you and they will win. Proposed solutions need to actually work.
2. We require industrial-scale power generation in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This is for a couple reasons. First, because a lot of energy is required, not optional. Depending on the location, people need to heat their homes in winter and cool their homes in summer. Second, because we need enough energy to keep prices low -- People will happily switch from natural gas furnaces to electric if it means their energy bill is cut in half, and will switch from electric to fossil fuels if the same is true. I saw this personally where I live, where people used to be able to heat their homes with renewable hydroelectricity, but mismanagement of the power system caused electricity prices to skyrocket, so many people had to switch to fossil fuels or face heating bills that looked like mortgage payments.
3. All industrial-scale power generation causes environmental damage. Solar panels, wind, hydroelectric, everything. We're not going to end environmental degradation in this journey, we're just trying to limit it in the long term.
4. "Someday we hope this works" is battle without victory. Betting on unproven technologies isn't a winning strategy.
5. All environmentalism is local. There is no once size fits all solution and anyone trying to say otherwise is selling you a bill of goods. Hydroelectric won't work in the Mojave desert, and solar won't work in the Arctic.
So here's my proposals:
1. There's lots of untapped hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world. In Canada, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all run almost entirely off of hydroelectric, and the other provinces could too if there was the will and the money. Russia is huge and I'm certain it has massive untapped potential for hydroelectricity. If these regions can take advantage of hydroelectricity, not only can they become carbon neutral, but these are proven technologies that have been heating and lighting homes for a century. We know hydroelectric works, and it works in places that aren't good for solar. Manitoba's hydroelectric dams are around Gillam, which is further north than 99% of people in Canada have ever even been, even to visit.
2. Once we have lots of power, we should start looking at motive technologies from a century ago. Electric streetcars or trackless electric trolleys existed long ago and didn't require new battery technologies to function. They took much less maintenance for the vehicles than ICE buses, and they wouldn't have to carry massive chemical batteries that would themselves need to be replaced periodically. We know they work, and they work in places that are very difficult to do battery electric such as the far north.
3. We need to get fission figured out. Semiportable power is a requirement for society to run, and right now as I write this there's diesel, natural gas, or propane generators running 24/7 in places that brag about being 100% renewable because you can't get a power line everywhere.
Anyway, tl;dr nobody asked. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.