We won't know because it will be ever changing. The problem has always been is alarmist have exaggerated, set dead lines, and scare tactics, and never once been right. You can simply search old news papers less than ten years old or even early youtube videos to see all sorts of predictions by people we were told you cannot question and they are all wrong.
I've given up even trying to debate any portion of the climate because no opinion other than agreement is allowed. You must fully agree with all statements because even questioning minor parts gets your branded.
The damage done to serious debate is astounding.
Yet, read a paper from a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, twenty, or ten, and even five, and you will see what has been predicted before and never come to pass will be predicted again with the same vehemence if not worse.
Are there things we can change and need to change. Yes, and we have been making great progress. However doubling down each time you don't get it right will not make it better.
It's unfortunate that some inaccurate predictions are used as "justification" to discredit research which has actually been conducted and communicated rather carefully for the most part. The predictions made have often been conservative with in the level of indicated catastrophe to prevent exactly the sort of backlash of alarmist-alarmism you are now espousing.
I've debated the topic for over a decade now. You make it sound like the majority of the research is sound or that the majority of the actors are good and honest.
The layout on the ground is true to how the grandparent lays it out. Questions are rejected. Doubts are branded as essentially unfaithful. Credentials are waved as proof of correctness instead of evidence combined with ideas, all while people with differing beliefs or ideas are stripped of their credentials, or have them invalidated. It's a recipe for close minded and one sided discourse.
The problems in science, as practiced today in academia, are legion. Meta science show the accuracy of the general landscape is poor. Common errors abound, papers that are considered the gold standards for years are shown to be built on faulty premise, code, methodology, etc.
To be fair, doing it right is HARD. Throw in even some mild corruption, bias in funding, dismissal of the skeptical, peg career advancement to publishing metrics (It's like measuring productivity by lines of code checked in. Once everyone knows it's happening the metric becomes totally useless due to systemic manipulation. The meta game shifts to hiding your manipulation of the metric while you manipulate the metric.). This system tends to produce generally poor results.
I wasn't trying to debate. I'm providing you a summary of what the general debate looks like after hundreds and hundreds of debates.
But let us take this post as a spring off point. You presume there is a baby. Both your posts illustrate this as an unquestioned axiom. However, I don't see a baby, it might well be a rat. It's down in the dirty water and I can't really identify it. The crux of the issue between us is then: 'Is there a baby, or something else?'. Which violates your axiom. Most people simply will not question their axioms. Which is when debate opponents start reaching for the, 'you're not qualified to have an opinion', 'your question is invalid', etc etc.
I'm not interested in debating the baby's potential eye color without first ascertaining the quality of the underpinnings of the system that declares a baby exists. I have found them to be rotten, mostly through smell as direct inspection is actively shunned. We don't really know it's actual state because academic science doesn't have systemic audits. The raw data, transforms and/or code/models are usually kept privately under tight wraps. This behavior is systemic. The generalized form of quality control in academic science is peer review, and my experience with quality systems is this is the bottom rung, the LOWEST form of quality check you can use that is actually a quality check.
If peer review is a good enough quality standard really depends on the product, customer, and the reputation my group desires to retain going forward. I think it's fine for low cost systems where schedule and budget are the customer's primary concerns. If something is of vital importance, I would demand higher levels of quality assurance than the lowest bar.
To sum up. If someone is declaring that there is an emergency. I consider this of vital importance! Thus, I find it perfectly reasonable to question the foundation until higher quality practices are in place to vet the entirety of the structure.
Do you even understand the volume of apps they deal with? Apple claims 100k a week[0]. How do you propose to handle that?
People are complaining about a small number of bad apps getting through and at the same time we have quite a few stating that not allowing people to load up anything they want is bad. Can you imagine trying to sort through the mess if there was no gate keeper because there is an actual chance if people get their legislative wish list through.
Even if you could get an independent system up and running who is going to pay for it? The staffing is going to be very large and who determines what is a good app and what is not?
I am all for Apple having and managing their store by their rules. While I think it is dumber than all get out to allow for people to install any app they find I am certainly not going to stand in their way as long as the companies which make the phones and provide the software are fully protected from such a choice. After all if a rogue app does something bad who do you think the lawyers will come for?
> Do you even understand the volume of apps they deal with? Apple claims 100k a week[0]. How do you propose to handle that?
Since it seems that Apple can't handle the problem they've delegated to themselves exclusively, and they prevent parties that might be better suited to solve it from solving it, they should allow the power of markets and competition to develop better, more efficient solutions. That way, consumers don't have to suffer while Apple insists that they're the only company allowed to serve the app distribution market as their customers are being scammed to the tune of several million dollars, or more, each month.
This reminds me of a section in the game Divinity Original Sin 2.
There's this area that can only be reached by crossing one of two bridges. The first bridge you encounter when you leave the starting town is guarded by a rude and aggressive troll. The bridge is a mess, falling apart, and he charges an expensive toll if you want to pass.
But if you explore for a bit instead of paying, you'll find another bridge with another troll, except this troll is super polite, soft-spoken and friendly, the bridge is very neat and tidy, and his toll is like 10x cheaper. He even thanks you for your patronage when you pay him.
When you encounter the mean troll again, he'll offer you a reward if you kill the other troll.
Apple charging 30% for a scam/malware-infested store, and keeping the profits rather than reinvesting them to try and actually improve the store makes them the first troll in this story.
Plus depending on news source Apple supposedly can get close to a hundred thousand apps submitted each week.[0]
That staggering number of apps is bound to have leakage of the bad sort and as long as Apple has in place a means to report them then they should be given some leeway. If there is no process (I really don't know) then yeah we should call them out on it.
Decades ago we implemented a time card system which worked by having the employee use a phone at the location, many locations had one or more phones which could be used, to clock in and out of work. Since we used an ANI feed you could not spoof it; I cannot guarantee that is or is not possible to spoof now.
I certainly cannot agree with requiring workers to use their own phone for this. if the company wants that app then it should provide the phone or use another means to guarantee they are on site.
Truckers being tracked is because the penalties involved are very real and enforced for reasons of safety to drivers and other users of the nations roads. tracking someone cleaning buildings or homes is a bit on the absurd side as most of us agree
Considering how quick people are to jump on the morals of other countries, specifically their not accepting what we decide is good, its not like this is a fight anyone is going to win.
I really would prefer the ability to choose the content I want through each app. Perhaps they could have a country of interest drop down. I certainly don't want someone to just up and decide but in today's social and litigious environment I can see why some companies are making the choices they do.
The list of planes across all of them is beyond imagination even when you list them out[0]. Some very interesting planes that were taken out of Germany to keep them out of any other nations hands are there.
The National Air and Space Museum even has the model of Star Trek's Enterprise NCC-1701 used during the show. While obviously not real the effect of the show and its ship are well documented
freshly minced onion does wonders in more than a few recipes, it certainly can add that final kick to tartar sauce if not any recipe with a good creamy base. you don't even need to add much.
One merely has to wonder what other content will find itself behind a no court order thirty minute window all on the word of designated groups with an interest.
So how much investiture into sporting facilities do EU countries end up fronting? Is it as bad as the US? Do they get any funds locally for sports broadcasting involving local teams? I will by default assume their is monetary relationships between politicians either direct or friends and family arrangements but I am not clear on how localities benefit.
The entertainment industry, be it sports, music, or movie and television, had an outsized influence of politics and policy and that itself needs reigned in.
Sadly Congress isn't going to fix this because it requires a much simpler tax system instead of one that is filled from end to end with special carve outs and rules.
When our current President subscribes to using tax law shenanigans to avoid paying taxes you can damn well bet much of the rest of Congress and high ranking state leaders will be found doing the same. One of the larger avenues of abuse is through S Corporations which let individuals shunt off income thereby avoiding certain types of taxes. It is also used by leadership of various charitable organizations to redirect money for purposes many would think fraudulent; like using them to buy homes for use by organization leadership or cover business jet ownership
I've given up even trying to debate any portion of the climate because no opinion other than agreement is allowed. You must fully agree with all statements because even questioning minor parts gets your branded.
The damage done to serious debate is astounding.
Yet, read a paper from a hundred years ago, fifty years ago, twenty, or ten, and even five, and you will see what has been predicted before and never come to pass will be predicted again with the same vehemence if not worse.
Are there things we can change and need to change. Yes, and we have been making great progress. However doubling down each time you don't get it right will not make it better.
It was fun here while it lasted