metalslug

The answer is literally in the very post you're replying to. 'future' and 'now' are not the same thing.

If we're using metaphors, here's mine; Do you think it's worthwhile for countries with smaller emissions to spends many billions on a bigger bilge pump while other countries are punching much larger holes in the hull and saving their own billions in the process? There's a potential military war looming in the Pacific within a few years and countries like Australia seem more interested in throwing billions at 1.3% emissions concerns than preparing themselves for events of a much more grave and immediate nature.

No, but inevitably they will ...in pursuit of reducing global emissions as it would amount to brazen hypocrisy if they didn't. Between this and an expected reduction in domestic consumption (much of it through legislation), the oil companies will not invest new capital until the future of their business looks brighter. So while fuel demand will remain high for a while, capacity will not, and the resulting pricing will have the consumers considering that at the polls. That party essentially betrayed their base by trying to 'out-left' the left and pandering to COP26, the very opposite position of what won them the election barely three years before. The Aussie left has now sold the electorate the lie that reducing Australia's 1.3% of global emissions will (a) not cost them anything extra and (b) will reduce flooding and bushfires. It remains to be seen how long they remain duped by that. Conservatives don't deny their 1.3% at all, they just deny the cost-benefit of eliminating it as China alone emits more emissions in just 16 days than Australia does in a whole year and will be increasing that output within just a few years.

Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world? ...as though that will reduce a perceived global problem? Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine. No future bans on petroleum vehicles? Good to know. .....who have in part been sold a lie that it won't cost them anything extra and who might balk when they realize the actual financial impact and express that disfavour at the polls.

That's probably because the DOJ actually understands legal definitions. Insurrection; yes. Sedition; yes. ...but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. Even a 'Trump told them to do it' argument would be a tough sell as no direct authority exists by a president over a civilian that compels them to the action. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. On that day Trump already had legal control of all those forces and did not use them to usurp control at the Capitol and did not countermand Pence's call for the National Guard. DOJ knows this even if Speaker's Corner does not.

Ah, the NPR ; "we'll beat your right-wing talking points with our left-wing talking points..." The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem". You might agree that 'not making up their minds' is an accepted lefty standard. I suppose it's some consolation that he didn't defer to "So what". I had said all that was relevant there, although I should perhaps feel flattered that you're more interested in my projects than the OP of that thread.

Well, make up your mind. You've said in earlier posts that the US has record exports of refined products and that there's no supply problem. So where is the refinery capacity restriction that you speak of? The most recent significant reduction was caused by hurricane damage, although I'm sure you'll be blaming that on climate change caused by the refinery itself. Those crafty petroleum magnates.

Not so fast there, or you'll trip over the goalpost that you're moving (for some odd reason). My post that you were replying to concerned oil only, not total products. Since 2021 the US has been importing more oil than it exports, per https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports-of-crude-oil and https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports-of-crude-oil Biden suspended oil & gas leasing, not refining capability. To have to import oil, that could be drilled locally, and then refine that to export it again, is not entirely optimum for pricing. To be fair, the US is not the only country with curious energy practices. Domestic users of LNG in Australia are paying a high price (globally compared) and even substantially higher per unit than the international customers that they export to, in a country that sits on a lot of LNG.

You're sure about that? You might want to re-check the numbers since 2021. To the OP; I maintain the term 'gouging' is this context is a little unfair when companies are merely trading at global market prices and I'm not convinced that governments are blameless in impacting supply (and hence price).

If you buy a house for a million dollars and then sell it for 30% or 50% more the following year, does that make you a gouger ? It's current market value. If consumers really want the oil price to come down then they could try using less of it. Of course it also wouldn't hurt the price if the US (or any capable country) were drilling for more of it.

May I assume from the quotes above that yourself and kallend have opposing views on the constitution ?

As abhorrent as going 'forward' to calling people racist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic in lieu of having a logically valid position. Inappropriate slurs on both sides are wrong.

Yes, two AI algorithms, about 25 years go as part of a hobby, albeit rudimentary and neither focused on grammar. I believe grammar AI is easier from the opinions of experts in that field whose opinions I respect, some of whom I've interacted with during my career in a related field. If you truly believe that then I suspect you're duped by Hollywood fiction. Although, I concede AI will come for your job. My espresso machine has already indicated an interest.

Based on your posts, you believe they're generated from Hollywood movie scripts. Your 'Matrix' and 'Terminator' world awaits...

Were you looking for the sarcasm font for this? That's not much different from the argument that moving to renewable energy will destroy a million jobs. AI is software. Software requires hardware. Hardware requires electrical power, maintenance, supporting infrastructure and a shitload of mined minerals for fabrication and maintenance. To say that machines will be supported largely by other machines is an unrealistic circular argument. I expect it will be primarily economics and politics that prevents 'dominant' AI from happening. Incidentally, to the OP; good grammar is at the easier end of AI, even some of the autocorrect apps I use (which are not large chunks of code) are really good at grammar. I've yet to hear of anything really special that's not exclusively based on raw mathematic power, much like an all-conquering chess computer is analogous to a forklift winning a weight-lifting competition. Creativity and improvisation are still valid arguments. AI only has the illusion of creativity; as many here will know even computerised 'random number' generation is not truly random and that's amongst the very simplest examples of spontaneous thought comparison.

In the present case I rather suspect supply needs to get way ahead of demand, else it's a bit like launching a new mobile phone network that only covers a dozen towns and then expecting to pull customers away from AT&T. I think we call it competition.

Morrison's statement was no less dishonest or deluded than opposing sentiments implying that motoring with EVs will not be less convenient than gas/diesel. A more honest middle-ground statement would be along the lines of; "EV's might ruin your weekend but if all Aussies swapped their vehicles for EVs it will reduce total global emissions by a whopping 0.3% and you might even enjoy the sanctimony of that, so suck it up." I won't be as bold as to claim that EV's have no advantages although it's certainly still subjective opinion for each motorist and some of this is covered in the OP article. The most obvious issue of course is the intended legislation to ban petrol/diesel vehicles. If the new government can't gaslight people with a proposition then they'll just beat them over the head with it and that will get interesting when compared to this Other than public designated recharge stations, the expectation is that EV owners would charge their vehicles overnight at their home; perhaps in their garage, carport or driveway. What percentage (US and globally) of vehicle owners actually have a garage, carport or driveway approximate to where they park? In many cases vehicle owners are obliged to park in public or communal areas overnight, sometimes a considerable distance from their door and/or any possible charge point. Is there a recourse for these motorists? A recharge station at every public and communal parking bay? A lot more recharge stations will need to become available to entice voluntary EV customers.

An old white man is currently your president, as is the likelihood of your next one if Joe actually finishes his current term. Maybe it's time for this candidate ? Changing times indeed...

Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.

Another outright lie from you. I said I would address a specific kind(s) of genetically male person as a woman as a practical courtesy to them and then in the very same sentence I also asserted that they do not meet the definition. That's a far reach to your "genetically male person is a woman". Twisting logic is your specialty here. Similarly; despite what Merriam-Webster has stated; I'll regard freefall jumps from a high altitude balloon as skydiving, but not freefall jumps from a tree, an opinion that is likely to hold a majority view amongst those who know skydiving.

?? I cannot assist you with reading and comprehension courses. Do those on your own time and dime.

Is that what you think this is about? Is gay and trans completely synonymous to you or are you attempting a strawman? Many gay people (arguably most gay people) are completely fine with a gender identity matching their biology. Those are not my definitions. In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com and I'm sure you can all relate to that fact. Perhaps a comparison more relatable for you would be an argument that "Great Replacement Theory" is not racist because your definition of it does not matter. Does that sound like a fair argument to you? Probably not, because if it is racist then it might include ideologies or actions intended to undermine or disadvantage people of colour. Following on from that, many forum members here are not people of colour nor do they identify as Lgbtqi+ and yet they might advocate for the causes of those groups. Fair enough. In the same way myself and winsor might be seen to advocate for feminist causes or to speak against absurd cases of supposed 'hate crime', either via indirect association with an affected person or merely on principle. So; who would be an 'affected person'? Swimmers who competed against Leah Thomas, for example, or the victims of Karen White, or perhaps some of the 120000+ people registered on the UK's Orwellian NCHI (non-crime hate incidents), where a UK citizen can potentially find themselves listed for something as innocuous as mis-gendering someone (The police only ask that the ‘victim’ reports a ‘perceived’ sense of ‘ill-will’ or ‘dislike’.) Therefore, when you consider the term 'no skin off your arse' then first consider all the causes that you advocate for that are not targeting you directly.

I just did exactly that. A moth that's lost it's wings is still a moth, despite not meeting the typical definition of a healthy specimen. But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.

Again your own ignorant comments persist. Try this; Woman: An adult human female Female; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. There has never been an instance of any XY chromosomal person producing ova, not even DSD cases. Certainly there are cases in which XX women have had medical conditions or undergone procedures that affect fertility and/or impact the definitions above , but the intentions of the definitions are typical, for someone presumed to be perfectly healthy remain valid and therefore do not preclude them as women. Curiously, in my earlier post, nobody seemed to object to the Merriam-Webster skydiving definition , which I intentionally knew was flawed (it excludes balloon jumps, for example) and yet I'd be fine to regard a balloon jump, with freefall time, as a skydive. Similarly I've already stated in this thread that I'd be willing to address a XY Swyer syndrome person or full-transitioned transgender as female, as a practical courtesy, even while accepting that they don't meet the definition. What I would not do is credit a skydiver title to someone who has merely jumped from a tree with a grocery bag above their head or hand my rig to someone who identifies as a skydiver but lacking the required skydiving credentials.

?? Globally; do you believe that gender identity and gender fluidity are more widely accepted by non-white cultures ? You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.