Al Gore's 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" included graphics showing that a 20-foot (6-meter) sea level rise—potentially from the melting of Greenland or parts of West Antarctica—would flood coastal areas, including the San Francisco Bay region on the West Coast, producing 100 million refugees worldwide. The film implied this could happen "in the near future," which a 2007 UK court ruling deemed "alarmist" and inaccurate, as such melting would likely take centuries, not decades. No specific date like 2012 was given, but the presentation suggested imminent risks.

The effect they are referring to here is when you hear that the world will end in 7 years. The west coast will be underwater by 2012 and many more like it. When you run around saying the sky will fall on our heads by xx date and the date comes and goes without anyone noticing the sky falling it becomes harder to sell the same story with a new date, except to those too young to remember the last time the prophecy of doom did not come true. I am not saying there is no climate change but there are many problems with the whole get people scared so they will change idea. Firstly most of the change is just platitudes from politicians who in the end find ways to skim off the top for them and their buddies based on any laws they enact. Secondly changing 10 countries or 20 will make no difference. Thirdly changing individual behavior has no real effect. The "scientists" are looking for solutions in the wrong places if they think convincing people will help. They need to develop non CO2 based energy sources so they are cheaper and better and are therefore more useful, convincing people will not work simply because China, India, Russia, etc do not care about this, also I would say the west does not care but they do want to make it appear like they care.

Yes they have these tools however there is a small issue with this which is CFDs (overseas I believe) for example if you trade NQ future contracts then everything is through CME and highly regulated and legit. However there are a few CFDs which also trade with names like US100 which is basically the same thing. So imagine holding some NQ contracts and wanting to close your position at a certain price but the market halts trading due to volatility (cannot remember the exact term) then you have a look at the price of US100 and it does not have to stop trading is comparatively unregulated (I am sure they have rules but not the same) and the price keeps going so when NQ reopens traders can use the reference of the CFD and you end up in a much worse position than anticipated. It happens that NQ trades 23 hours per day (5 days a week) even though market hours are much more limited however the same issue applies with many other instruments. I am not sure that this is a good answer or even if an answer is required.

However it would help traders who want to limit their risk with a close position at a certain price who are not day trading. For example if you buy a position in Tesla and want to close if the price goes below 20% down you can put in a close order of a Sell Stop at a price point 20% down. However if the market gaps down overnight the price can have jumped your sell stop order and you end up losing greater than anticipated. Currently Day traders can do this as they will not hold positions overnight.

No doubt? I guess you are not interested in science.

I was working with an engineer from the old school before we all had PCs etc. He told me that when he started he had a secratary (shared) to type up his notes and an assistant and with the tools we have nowadays (going back 25 years now) one engineer is about to output almost 10x the amount without an assistant or a secretary and we should all be working 1 day a week. However in a competitive world there is just a higher output expected rather than less work. I think the 4 day week is a good thing in many ways but not sure about the viability for many businesses. There is with most of these things a short term gain (due to being used to a 5 day week) then that drops away as people adjust to it. There was a time when people worked 6 or even 7 days a week as standard. We don't want to go that way however I have worked with engineers from Taiwan and Japan and they do work 6 days a week and 10+ hours per day often. I have found them to be hard workers with no real slacking that I noticed.

That he could outswim his brother was the whole point of the movie, it was not due to his physical ability but his metal attitude which caused him to push through pain and problems. It was a great movie.

Well Ukraine did have Nuclear weapons situated on their soil but they were not belonging to them and they did not have the command and control for them. Russia was not happy about this (that is Ukraine independence) however at that time they were not in a position to do much about it and the guarantees were from Russia, UK and US. Note that part of that was that deal was that Ukraine remain neutral, which was in their constitution but has since been removed to put them on a path to NATO. No one was happy for Ukraine to have Nukes and with the corruption in Ukraine it would have been a dangerous situation that they would have been spread far and wide including to Terrorists. Note that the more countries that have Nukes the closer we are to Nuclear war.

He has to say that to keep his investors cool despite people leaving and also the big numbers he throws around are I would guess to up his own perceived worth.

When you buy your tickets you look for reasonable deals, if you see one that is significantly different then chance are you will take it. Delta pricing can be good in my experience.

Wonder how possible it would be to hack the drones to turn against them. I know that both sides like to keep their best drone pilots back from the front line and use a link to the actual drone deployment point. Imagine if they could turn around 500 or 1000 drones to attack the owners all at once.

The regulations around stable coins are better than currently what exists I believe. Stable coins are really little more than a way to bypass money laundering safeguards and the stability is either by having the assets to back them up or by ponzi type method where there is no assets (or less assets than the market cap.) Assets can be paper assets such as loans which is also problematic since if the borrower defaults then you are back to ponzi. I think that regulating meme coins would be good also but this regulation makes a lot of sense. Also remember not all ponzi schemes are as bad as each other at least with Bitcoin the rules are laid out and not hidden while it is in effect as you say it is at least clear and in the open. However there is of course the issue of the community possibly changing the rules. In another way Gold is also somewhat the same in that the industrial and consumer value of Gold v's current available quantities has a massive gap which could be called imaginary value or a supply and demand value where the demand side is seemingly unreasonable. Is it the job of the government to stop you buying Gold? They have done in the past to push up USD but the libertarian would be against it.

So facing reality is supporting? What is clear to me is that you require that people not only support Ukraine but also believe the full narrative without deviation. Free thought is actually an asset, many soldiers are sent to their deaths to support a narrative without actual prospect of winning

The unconditional cease fire is a joke from the Russian point of view. What happened when Russia agreed to Minsk 2, Ukraine rearmed and fortified and kept violating the cease fire (I am not even saying that Russia didn't also but they don't trust Ukraine with reasons) How would it be any different in this case. Russia made an offer and Ukraine made a offer (you could substitute demand in both cases really.) Why did Russia not accept what Ukraine offered and why did Ukraine not accept what Russia offered. Simple answer is the difference is too great. What is the answer, well you have no advice except to fight for their sovereignty. However that is what they risk by fighting on and not accepting Russia's offer. Everything is clear except your thinking.

While it may be true that Russia had to enforce it's boarder and operate in Kursk the harsh reality is that the side with greater numbers has much more to gain by extending the contact line. Russia did move troops into Kursk but those troops now having defeated and expelled the Ukrainians have started operating in the North putting pressure on Sumy. Russia can press on the line in different places and force Ukraine to move defenders into that position and then just move the offensive to another location forcing Ukraine to keep moving it's forces around. This is the advantage of having greater numbers. Also Russia focuses on the Main Supply Road to cut off or at least put a price on delivering supplies and re-enforcements to front lines.

If Ukraine can turn the situation around good, but it seems they have every disadvantage at present. Perhaps you see the war in a totally different light and predict that Ukraine can win? I don't see that happening unless something significant changes. What could change? US troops is about the only thing that would have the potential to make a difference. Biden did not want that, Trump does not want that, who would want that. Europe will not send troops without the US so perhaps you can shine a light on what might make a difference here? Logically Ukraine should go and make a deal with Russia as any deal they strike today will be significantly better the any deal made in 12 months time or longer. Russia offered a deal in 2022 and Ukraine agreed but backed out, Russia just offered a deal again much worse than before as it included 4 regions of Ukraine. Russia said if you don't take the deal now it will be more regions next time. What is the smart thing to do? What I want personally is for the war to end as I see no benefit to Ukraine to continue it. Ukraine's idea of negotiation is to say to Russia go back to the 91 boarders and pay us reparations for the damage of the war, does this sound practical? There is a bit too much distance between the bid and the ask at this point to make a deal it would seem.

This is from Grok Month Gain in Territory (km) Notes/Source January 2025 ~500 Based on AMK Mapping analysis using DeepState data February 2025 ~400 Estimated from weekly advances reported in analyses citing DeepState trends (e.g., ~108 km in third week, extrapolated) March 2025 143 UK intelligence citing DeepState data April 2025 ~127 Calculated from DeepState figures cited in analysis (up 253% to May) May 2025 449 DeepState mapping project data June 2025 ~556 Analysis citing DeepState updates The idea that Russia is out of missiles or running low has been the line for years but they continue to attack night after night in any given month there are more missiles than in the past. The front line continues to advance and I think these figures don't take into account Kursk which would bring the figures more inline with an increasing trend. Note that it slows somewhat dependent on weather so there is an expected trend upwards from that. However gaining ground is not so much a goal here but just part of the overall plan. This will change due to the non linear nature of warfare but it is obvious that Russia is consistently posting gains. Note I asked grok to use DeapstateUA as the source for data which is Ukrainian. Also Russia is not using tanks or APCs so much as electric bikes. The reason is the tactic of driving in an APC is difficult as a drone or mine gets it and stops it then the drones kill the occupants. They moved to bikes not because they are safe but they are harder to hit with a drone and if hit it takes out 1 person. Does that mean the attack will be successful? No just changing the odds. Ukraine has also started using this same tactic. There is a concept that if Russia makes a breakthrough to effectively undefended territory it may take some major advance with heavy armor, however the problem is mines still which can be laid by drones. Shahed is the basis of the Russian design but they have improved it somewhat and interceptor drones are great but Russia is attacking with so many drones and the numbers go up so if you have a 90% interception rate and they launch 100 drones then 10 get through but if they launch 1000 then 100 get through. Russia is getting up towards 1000 on a busy night, they deliberately go in waves taking 3 or 4 days with a low count (like 100) then two days with over 500. Everything Russia is doing is increasing, they care about territory but not about speed. I suspect they will start to think about Odessa the reason is obvious in that it will cut Ukraine off from the sea port and cripple the economy (more.)

The idea that western aid is unlimited is also not realistic, Europe is facing an economic crisis. Western countries have also freely taken from seized Russian assets interest and given this to Ukraine, now what are they going to do when and if Russia and Ukraine make a deal and Russia demands it's money. There is no law allowing them to take this money so they either admit that it was stolen which Russia will seek compensation for or they find some money from somewhere to pay it back. They only have tax as income, if I was in the UK I would not want my tax being used to pay Russia. I don't want my money sent to Ukraine as there is no utility in doing so except perhaps to kill Russian soldiers (and Ukrainian) but I do not see any virtue in this perhaps you do?

The fact is Russia winning or Ukraine winning is of little concern overall to me so I don't have any "copium" need however perhaps you do. However since Ukraine wants the destruction of Russia it seems in various speeches and comments and understanding that Russian Nuclear doctrine would be triggered before or by this it is of interest to me that Ukraine achieves no more than pushing Russia back to xx position. The idea that this might happen when all of Ukraine's efforts since 2022 have involved minimal advancement or a publicity stunt (such as the Kursk offensive which found a weak point to attack and gain ground not on their territory but on Russian soil for no known reason and ended up with Russia slowly crushing them) is maintained only by those who see a drastic change in the whole battlefield situation by a 3rd party event (the USA) or by those who are caught up in an emotional situation with no basis in reality. Try logic and reason instead of whatever you are using as tools for understanding reality.