My god you are dishonest. Your original beef with the OP was apparently that they were being hypocritical since they (according to your imagined view of them) did not view the 2016 election certification process in the same light as the 2020 election certification process. I pointed out that that's a false equivalence since Trump has not conceded the election and is actively contesting the reported results. You then smuggled in your view of what contesting the election should entail, but here's the thing: your view does not matter -- not just in practice, but given your original argument.

If the OP was being hypocritical, then it's their view of what it means for the election to be contested that ultimately matters. Given that they rejected the MSM election reporting (to which you align), they've apparently concluded that the candidate refusing to concede, which incidentally is reality, constitutes contesting the election.

Are Trump's challenges likely to fail? Yes. If they fail, does that mean that he didn't contest the election results? No. Did Trump contest the 2020 election results in the face of MSM reporting whereas Clinton accepted the 2016 MSM reporting without contesting the results? Yes, that is a thing that happened. If that's the view of the OP, does that invalidate your original criticism? Yes, yes it does. Are you full of shit? That's abundantly clear.

Seriously? I guess if you change the definition of "actively contested" to mean "contested only if I agree, given my absolute knowledge of all pending and potential litigation" then you've got a point. You're god at that point too, though, since you can apparently read minds and determine the future.

I don't think that it's particularly likely that Trump has enough of a case to overturn states necessary to win the election, but it is in the realm of what is possible... that's why the election is still being actively contested. To pretend that that's not the case is to either cling to a political zealot's fantasy or -- more likely -- rationalize away any problems in your reasoning so that you didn't actually fuck up in your original argument.

But you did. You fucked up.

You fucked up in the right place, though, since the dumbass mods apparently think you said something insightful... Mods often ain't too bright, though.

In fairness to the OP, that's a false equivalence. Reported results for this election are being actively contested, but Clinton did not contest the reported election results in 2016. It's the fact that the election is being contested that makes it meaningful to state that it hasn't been certified at this point.

Ah, I see. So the phone was face-up, on, the UI was visible in the picture, and you could determine that it was a standard consumer interface. Is that correct? Again, I haven't seen the actual photo. A link to it would certainly help.

I'm not familiar with this photo, but I am genuinely curious: how do you know, just from looking at a picture, whether a phone is secured or not? I would have expected that secured and unsecured phones would appear the same. After all, a notable difference in outward appearance would seem to beg for phones that mimic the "safe" appearance in order to gain exposure to sensitive material, and it that difference would advertise that authentic secured phones have likely been exposed to sensitive (hence valuable) information, thus making them worthwhile to target for theft/*ware/etc. Did the phone clearly belong to one of the reporters or something?

Again, maybe it's painfully obvious from the photo whether or not the phone is secure, but given my unfamiliarity, I'd just like to know.

Of course things change and, in the future, may change for the worst (or may not). I don't know how they'll change, and neither do you. I wasn't challenging you about what will happen in the future, though, I was challenging you about the way things "are," which is what you stated. Very clearly, the present state of affairs contradicts your claim. The jobs "are" not leaving.

You're just wrong, friendo.

You sure about that, friendo?

You say this as though companies would never have though of outsourcing if it wasn't for this one particular grant. Do you really think a one-time, $10,000 grant will suddenly cause a company to say, "Fuck! We've been ignoring India all this time! Let's get on that outsourcing bandwagon!"?

Companies who'd benefit from outsourcing would already, and will continue to, benefit from outsourcing regardless of this proposed grant. Instead of promoting outsourcing, this grant will pretty clearly provide an incentive for a company to ponder, "Hmm. Do I really need Jeff to come in at 9:30 to mess around with spreadsheets, or could he just do that at his home (and earlier)?".

If you want to object to this grant on the basis of business incentives, it's that "and earlier" part that should concern you: companies aren't going to take the grant and say, "Yay outsourcing!", they're going to take the grant and say "Yay always-on employees!" I mean, companies already say that to an extent, but there is still a bit of a cultural norm that says office-time is company time, and home-time is me time. If you remove the office, though, that norm necessarily diminishes. You may get added convenience as an employee, but that convenience will come with the expectation that you're ready to do work whenever.

The proposed grant will certainly have its costs, but outsourcing is really more of a red herring in this context. Given the benefits that this proposal intends to incentivize (less traffic congestion, road maintenance, fuel requirements for the state; less office costs, more flexible employee availability, broader regional employee accessibility for the company; less commuting, more work flexibility, more family time for the employee... and the list goes on), it seems that Vermont is, as another user put it, embracing a "sudden outbreak of common sense."

Why do you think this wouldn't already be the case? Do you really think a one-time, $10,000 grant intended to promote remote work is going to tip a company over into outsourcing? If it does, that's not a company to work for anyway, because it's not going to be around a long time if a minor, one-time grant trumps cost analysis of workers over an extended time.

Companies who'd benefit from outsourcing are going to pursue outsourcing (if they aren't already doing so) regardless of this proposal. Really, outsourcing is a red herring, with respect to the proposed grant. The intent behind this proposal is pretty clear: reduce unnecessary commutes by providing at least a little bit of an incentive for businesses to re-examine the status quo. Businesses will still need to consider whether enabling remote work is feasible or not, but if it is, this will at least provide a carrot to get the business moving.

From the summary, it was concrete production that was fingered as the 5% contributor, not concrete use in general. In fact, the summary even states:

That sounds to me like pretty much exactly what the parent stated. They were correct to indicate cement as the big CO2 driver in concrete production, based on the article summary. Maybe read what was actually said before getting all pedantic?

This actually sounds like the one-electron theory, which postulated that positrons are just electrons traveling backwards in time, allowing for the possibility of just one "electron" in the universe (any electron you observe is just the universal electron at a particular time instance, and the same would apply to observed positrons). Entangled electrons or positrons, then, would literally just be the same actual particle (or rather, field fluctuation). The problem with this particular theory is that, if true, one would expect to see the same amount of positrons as electrons, which just doesn't seem to be the case. I would expect that there's probably a similar issue with the general idea of any entangled particles being the same particle.

What you're talking about are hidden variables, and Einstein considered them as a way to explain away the spookiness. The problem is, people like John Bell came up with pretty ingenious ways of testing whether hidden variables are really responsible for the spookiness, and, in short, they aren't*. Veritassium actually has a pretty good explanation of why hidden variables don't work.

*Okay, local hidden variables (like those in your example) are ruled out. It is possible that hidden variables, that stretch across the whole of the universe, could still be in play.

And roosters cause the sun to rise... Didn't the common refrain around here used to be that correlation is not causation?

Yes, bachelor degrees are correlated with higher salaries and lower unemployment -- on average --, but that doesn't tell you that those degrees enable people to command higher salaries and lower unemployment. It could very well be that the types of people likely to pursue 4-year (at least) degrees to completion are also the types of people likely to put in the work and dedication required to command high salaries... the types of people who will keep searching for work when they're unemployed.

Certainly college degrees are necessary (and reasonably so) for some professions, such as those in medicine, but mostly, they serve as a status symbol and certification -- a shortcut that signals to other people that the recipient possesses skills necessary for employment. However, there are certainly other ways those skills can be advertised, and people possessing those skills do not require a degree to do so. Due to pervasive attitudes and social stigmas, though, it just so happens that it's often (socially) easier to pursue a degree, rather than advertising worth and quality through other means, hence the disproportionate amount of high-earners with degrees.

Also, make no mistake, the "on average" part above really matters: there are several degrees out there that, if pursued for employment purposes, are actually more of a liability (when considering the financial and opportunity costs necessary to obtain the degree). Not to beat on an already bloodied target, but would you really council someone just looking for employment to pursue a gender studies degree because, after all, those possessing a degree generally earn more than those without a degree? I mean, if gender studies floats your boat, then by all means, study gender studies, but if the goal is just to get a decent paying job, there are better ways to spend 4 years of your life, and several of those ways do not involve college.

Just like janitors should be paid more than NBA stars, right?

Say it with me: supply and demand. That's the underlying framework of markets; not job importance.

I agree with the thrust of the article you reference; that garbage men perform a more important service than, say, patent trolling lawyers. Worker pay isn't determined by job importance, though; it's determined by how many other people are available to perform the job being payed for. If you work in a low skilled job, you're basically replaceable by myriad other would-be workers looking for a paycheck. As important as they are, garbage men are easily replaced; and as parasitic (overall) as they are, attorneys able to successfully litigate a patent lawsuit are few and far between.

The only time low-skilled workers really make their presence known, and can demand a change, is when they work as a collective to demand that change. High-skilled workers don't really have to rely on others; since from a supply perspective, they're essentially worth a collective, individually. The individual garbage man has basically no shot at demanding better pay or work conditions, but all garbage men in a municipality acting at once do, since it's just not practical to replace everyone. The individual patent attorney (assuming the right technical background as well), can easily demand more; they're just not that common.

I don't see how UBI would alter this situation: yes everyone would have a fixed, base income, but garbage collection would still be low-skill, and patent litigation would still be high-skill. If anyone wanted more than their UBI, they would need to pursue work, and low-skill work would still be the easiest entry point. All UBI would do is remove the people who just don't want to do anything at all, and are content with a basic income, from the worker pool, which, if UBI advocates are to be believed, would be a minimal amount of people. It wouldn't have any impact on the disparity between pay scales between low and high-skilled labor.

They said, "should."

Everyone knows that whatever follows means, "in my ideal reality ..." Oh, and there are never any unforeseen consequences that arise from the "should" either.