Yah, right, like I keep sources of everything I remember from 30 years ago. Uh huh. You of course, being perfect, do keep such sources, instead of just googling and reporting the results which confirm your own bias.
OK, basically you're saying you have no source for anything you say. Got it.
That's not the incentive that caused the subprime mortgage crisis at all. Where dod you get this idea from?
From reading the news as it happened.
The incentive that caused this was the ability for originators to easily sell loans,
The ability for originators to easily sell the loans was because they could easily make money from them. Which is what I said.
Except the main news tended to focus on the crisis of the banks and financial institutions making the loans, not the people receiving the loans.
...It's basic market dynamics
Exactly.
You cite no sources, so I assume you're making this all up.
However, I guess it's also possible that you got your "information" from One-America Network, or some other source that made all their facts up for you.
I will point out that celebrities typically buy coastal houses on bluffs overlooking the ocean
Bluffs aren't a great place. They collapse.
The question was about sea level rise.
However, the kinds of multi-million-dollar mansions that celebrities buy aren't the rickety perched-on-the-edge-of-a-crumbling bluff houses built in the 30s and 40s. They tend to be built-by-high-priced-architects homes that had civil engineers to advise about the stability of the foundation.
Using celebrity behaviour as a gauge is also not a great idea.
The comment about celebrities came from the parent post I was responding to. My general belief is that we should ignore what celebrities do, but most of America seems to follow them obsessively, and a photo-spread of one People-magazine level celebrity is more important than any dozen climate scientists.
They do all sorts of stupid shit. When a celebrity buys a multi-million dollar house on a beach or a bluff they're thinking "this is cool, let's party" not "is this a secure asset I'll be able to pass down to my children."
Yep. And, 2100 is a long way away.
I would think the first step is insurance companies backing out of insuring. Is that happening?
Yes. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insurancebusinessm...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arbol.io%2Fpost%2Fthe-...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scrippsnews.com%2Fli...
Gotta admit, it was pretty funny when Obama bought a multi-million dollar mansion on the coast just three feet above seal level.
Here's a photo of Obama's home (from People magazine). It's on a hill overlooking the Ocean:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Fhome%2Fbarack...
A lot higher than "three feet above sea level."
Basically, they make housing loans to people who really couldn't afford it, and charge them higher rates, making a ton of money as long as they keep getting paid. When the people who can't afford it run out of money and can't pay, they repossess the house and sell it. Since house prices keep rising, they get their original money back, and do the very same thing again.
Nice racket, and it works great as long as housing prices keep rising.
Ill believe this when Insurance companies stop insuring coastal properties, celebrities stop buying coastal houses,
I will point out that celebrities typically buy coastal houses on bluffs overlooking the ocean . Don't worry about the celebrities; they'll be fine when sea level rises by a meter in 2100.
and when banks stop mortgaging coastal properties
Even thirty-year mortgages don't go to 2100.
* That's right. The IPCC prediction for global mean sea levels is 0.28 to 1.01 meters by the year 2100. Yeah, the IPCC: the organization that the deniers keep telling us is "alarmist". https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fsrocc%2Fchap...
It's just that Open AI is admitting it.
They cannot become a nuclear weapons state at 3.67% enrichment, with international inspectors verifying compliance.
Earlier you responded "exactly" to my statement which included the fact enrichment caps are time limited under JCPOA to 2030. I presume the JCPOA would have been effective at enforcing agreed upon constraints and Iran would not violate it.
if you scroll up, you will see that I replied "exactly" to your statement
The JCPOA capped enrichment to 3.67% until 2030 and imposed stockpile and centrifuge limits. They kept enriching the entire time while respecting agreed upon limits.
I assume you will respond "exactly" to my statement
They cannot become a nuclear weapons state at 3.67% enrichment, with international inspectors verifying compliance.
No war almost happened because of AI. What an idiot you are to think that.
You should read Slashdot. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstor...
perhaps you should read it more closely. FFS do you believe every bit of clickbait nonsense?
Perhaps you should read more closely.
Here are a variety of sources to get you started:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fsearch...
They cannot become a nuclear weapons state at 3.67% enrichment, with international inspectors verifying compliance.
Not sure who you think is the horse's mouth, but it is not possible, period,
No, DT is completely responsible here. Let me remind you of the history. Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran-- the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:-- in which they would agree not to continue working on isotope enrichment to develop a nuclear bomb
The JCPOA capped enrichment to 3.67% until 2030 and imposed stockpile and centrifuge limits. They kept enriching the entire time while respecting agreed upon limits.
Exactly. That's not even come close to making a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is typically enriched to 90% or higher U-235. That's not even Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), which is >20% U-235.
But DT tore up the treaty that stopped their enrichment program from making anything more than reactor fuel, and put inspectors in place to verify that.
People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.
