Well, Ukraine was named "Rus'" (latin: "Russia") for most of its existence, this means it belongs to the country that stole their name in 1721, right?

How come? The conclusion I draw might be slightly exaggerated, but the facts I listed are true:
* Korolev, Kondratyuk and the vast majority of early space engineers ('50s and '60s) were Ukrainians, I haven't checked later periods
* Gagarin was a peasant-born worker, an ethnic Russian; he wasn't very educated; internal controls had been installed in Vostok-1 but locked with a code that was to be told to Gagarin over radio only in the case of an emergency
* after the fall of Soviet Union (and independence of Ukraine) the Russian space program has been rife with failures
* especially prominent projects like Luna 25
* most of nuclear engineers were Ukrainians
* Dyatlov was an ethnic Russian
* chattel slavery was predominant in Russian parts of the Tsardom, despite current Russian propaganda saying otherwise (see eg. "Dead Souls" by Gogol for an example that's widely known to Western readers)
* railroads were made by German engineers
* there were millions of Volga Germans in Russia
* Germans suffered a number of expulsion events until almost all were gone from Russia

The bits I just listed are those that are trivial to verify. Remaining ones require digging deeper and might rely on sources' opinions. But, that's enough to disprove that I'm spewing bullshit.

Russia doesn't have any real technology of its own. For example, their space program was driven by Sergei Korolev and Yuri Kondratyuk plus their fellow Ukrainians, and when for propaganda purposes the first man in space had to be a Russian of a worker-peasant background, the spaceship was controlled remotely as Gagarin was deemed too unskilled to manage that. It's no surprise that when Ukraine regained independence, the space program stopped, with Russian efforts being about as successful as Luna 25.

Same with nuclear power. It was made by Ukrainian engineers, then when the Party assigned Russian overseers like Dyatlov, they did a whole string of procedures wrong, with a well-known result.

The reason is cultural. For centuries, ethnic Russians had a deep hatred of science and culture, believing that nobles should never touch such endeavors (and serfs were outright slaves, with chattel slavery in core parts of the empire). Whenever there was some technology needed, the tsars instead invited foreigners, such as Dutchmen, Germans, etc. Their engineers were employed for every project such as railroads. Same with culture: even pieces made by ethnic Russians (like Tchaikovsky) were based on German folk tales and written in French, not Russian. By late 19th century there was ~6-8 million foreigners in Russia, a good part of them "Volga Germans", speaking German and following German customs. But whenever the tsar/chairman had a change of mind, there came expulsions: at the end of 19th century to America, in ~1920, in 1941, etc. The role of German engineers was taken by Ukrainians. Then, by 1990, the empire lost Ukraine, and results follow...

Clearly you have never been to England. The ten hottest days range from 36-40C, more than 10C higher than your first number and 5C higher than your second. Even Scotland, somewhere _really_ not known for its hot weather, beats both of them. Plus, like the rest of the planet, we use centigrade for temperature. Even when I was kid in northern England we had heatwaves well over your numbers, in fact 1976 was a major heatwave which I remember since they almost cut off the water and put in standpipes the reservoirs got so low which while concerning for my parents was just exciting when you are a kid!

What amazes me is that not only can they do that, they manage it by pivoting from something almost entirely unrelated like biotech. When you reach the "let's throw random things at the wall and hope that something sticks" phase investors should be running, not walking, away.

If people understood basic risk and statistics then casinos and lotteries would not exist. Although to be fair the media do not help: a vehicle fire is far more likely to be reported if it involves an EV than an ICE.

I did not say that you could not do it, only that it will be regulated and that means that a regulator gets to set out the requirements you have to meet for whatever you want to do. It's not a free-for-all where you can do pretty much whatever you like with some licence agreement as the OP was saying.

It's basically a year to a year and a half off people's life expectancies, from the heat alone.

Although this is not trivial, the antivaxxer movement will likely chop 10-15 years off life expectancies and greatly reduce quality of life for much of the remainder, same again for the expected massive reduction in air quality that will result from modern political movements, and the absurd puritanical movement in the US will likely chop another 10-15 years off the life expectancies of women.

These are, therefore, substantially more significant, although politically impossible to deal with right now.

I fully expect that, if current trends prevail, by 2040, life expectancies will resemble those of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.

Attending work for 2 days means I pay £190 per week to work, with no recompense from the company. Because there's a decent amount of holiday time, my wages have only dropped £9000 per year from last year. If I needed to attend 5 days a week, I would have to leave the only job that I have ever held that actually made any functional effort to handle my disabilities. In other words, if I lost this job, I would not be capable of functionally working in any job at all, simply because most companes don't give a damn about disabilities. Legally, however, I would be deemed "capable of work". As such, I would have no wages and no benefits. Once my money ran out, I'd be on the streets. There is simply no viable alternative.

If a business guy thinks adding to the homeless is the best way to improve work morale, then maybe he's not a business guy that holds any opinion of value. He may well be listened to, which will cause a LOT of problems for a LOT of people and WILL increase unemployent and, in countries with failing industry, increase the homelessness of people who are far more competent than him, but that does not make his opinion valuable, merely incredibly stupid and sickeningly naive.

No they cannot. In just about every country on the planet the sale of financial products is strictly regulated in general terms that will include any new ways that technology makes possible. There may be some specific rules tied to specific products that new methods can avoid but any new financial service or product will immediately fall under the purview of a countries financial regulator. If it were not for this then the markets would far fuller of scams and dodgy products than they already are: for every genuine new financial innovator there are many, many more con-artists only too willing to take advantage of people's willingness to "make money fast".

Yep, https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

And if you're looking at these kinds of timelines, there are also other feedback loops driven by tectonics. Rock weathering, primarily.

Are you an LLM?

So let me rehash this: you found one unrelated fact from a completely separate field of study, quoted it wrongly, and then used that to imply that concern about global warming is merely "emotional attachment"? Yep, totally matches the behavior of dirtbag scammer trash.

We have statistical methods to distinguish noise from data.

Sigh. And do you remember what they say about the mating habits of spotted owls? Also, Earth is predicted to slow down on average, but can experience temporary glitches as the inner masses rearrange slightly.

EarPods

Sigh. Why does it matter? Will an incorrect prediction (if it's indeed incorrect) in one spot on Earth somehow invalidate direct observations of _global_ sea rise?