metalslug

Members
  • Content

    1,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by metalslug


  1. 8 hours ago, billvon said:

    Yes.  In fact we are exporting record amounts, although FOX News is not carrying the news for some odd reason.

    From Bloomberg:

    ===========================

    US Exports Soar As World Works to Replace Russian Supplies

     
    April 20, 2022 at 9:18 AM PDT

     

    The U.S. exported the most oil and petroleum products...

    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. 


  2. 21 hours ago, billvon said:

    ?? We are drilling so much that we export more than we import.   So clearly it's not a supply problem.

    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).  


  3.  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.


  4. On 5/16/2022 at 7:42 AM, kallend said:

    Well, we have a constitution written by, for and on behalf of wealthy white landowners and slaveowners.  

     

    On 5/17/2022 at 7:29 AM, billvon said:

    Then there may be value in supporting democrats, if for no other reason that they support the US Constitution.

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


  5. 8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    Just go back to calling people niggers, spics, and cunts, Winsor. Then you'll be free.

    Wendy P.

    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.


  6. 43 minutes ago, olofscience said:

    Have you developed any AIs? How would you know if it's easier?

    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.

    21 hours ago, olofscience said:

    AI will eventually be going for all jobs, mine included.

    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.


  7. 17 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

    I just feel terrible for all of the people who will still be alive. What a tragedy.

    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.

    • Like 1

  8. 11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

    Hi slug,

    As I have posted before, when the auto first became available to buyers, they had to carry their own containers down to a pharmacy to get gas for the car.

    Inconvenient at the time; but, the infrastructure soon came along.

    I think we call it supply & demand.

    Jerry Baumchen

    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.


  9. 10 hours ago, billvon said:

    "EV's will ruin your weekend!" cried Scott Morrison, the PM - along with other BrentHutchian utterances.

    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.


  10. 5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

    The fact that you're raging here actually shows that it's not as widely accepted as you want it to be. And that number is going down. Times are changing, old white men are raging.

    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...

    mayra-flores-south-texas-congress.jpg


  11. 2 hours ago, billvon said:

    Originally I posted an apology, but then I went back through the thread.  You said "I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX"  - and now you are saying that an XY person cannot be a woman.

    I give up.  Perhaps your sophistry will be more effective on others who aren't as familiar with the thread.  It almost worked on me.

    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.


  12. 2 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Like yourself?  You yourself have agreed that there are cases where a genetically male person is a woman.

    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.


  13. 1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

    A lot of words and still no answer to the question. Why do you care and how is it any of your business?

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


  14. 9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    Boys will still mostly like girls and girls will still mostly like boys. 

    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.

    9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    Your definition does not really matter. Some people want to live as well as they can as a different gender from the one that comes most naturally with their genes, or in some cases their genes are not arranged in the standard way. Either way, in the most plain terms, it's no skin off your ass. Why does it upset you and Winsor and some others so? At the same time I also am inpatient with those who look for biological arguments to justify it. There is no justification needed. Just let people alone. Why should you care? The world is not going to fall apart into some abyss of gender dysphoria. The social order will not collapse. Boys will still mostly like girls and girls will still mostly like boys. Nothing will change except that some people will feel less oppressed and more free. Move alone now, there's nothing for you to see here.

    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.


  15. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Ah!  So you can't say with certainty what a woman is, 

    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.

    1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Sometimes there are women who do not meet your definition! 

    But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.


  16. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Ah, there's the rub.

    XX chromosomes?  Nope.  There are tens of thousands of XY women in the US who don't know they are XY.

    Female genitalia?  Nope.  There are even more women who are not Stage 0 on the Prader scale.

    Presenting as female?  There are as many defintions of "presenting" as there are people.

    Having a uterus?  (Yes, one republican anti-woke senator said that that was the definition of a woman - thus making millions of American women into men.)

    Which is why in a case like this, the people who say 'it's EASY!  If you don't automatically know what a woman is you are a JOKE!" are the truly ignorant.

    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.

     


  17. 1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

    Now that 'old white guys' aren't in absolute charge, the definitions that THEY insisted on using are no longer absolute.

    ?? Globally; do you believe that gender identity and gender fluidity are more widely accepted by non-white cultures ?

    13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

    What is a woman by definition?

    You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.


  18. 18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

    Funny how people who are raging about this know next to nothing about human biology, or even just biology in general.

    Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already.

    25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

    But then again you think you know better than NASA or NOAA scientists when it comes to climate change, so I guess it's not really that far out of character for you.

    More hot air comments from someone who skipped their homework.   Quite recently I even gave credit to a NASA scientist for their predictions.   ...but you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.


  19. 13 hours ago, billvon said:

    When a new jumper gets their license, starts to jump and gets to about 100 jumps, often they decide they know everything. 

    .......

    Some skydivers (and some people) get to the point where they realize they don't know everything.  That's an important stage for the more intelligent people out there - to get to the right side of that graph.

     

    confidence.JPG

    Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ?   The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." 

    I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade?  Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.


  20. 11 minutes ago, lippy said:

    I couldn't find an original of that tweet or any reference to Kim Carson, which makes me wonder which of the following is true:

    - Somebody legitimately believes that slowing coal burning in one part of the world will result in never having brush fires again

    - Somebody on the right made this up to demonstrate how stupid the 'Greenie libtards' are and you ate it up without the slightest bit of critical thinking.

    I'll spare you a "Let me Google it for you", it's  here . About 3 posts down. I had first thought it was satire myself, it got 11 'laughs',  but checking the comments and the poster's rebuttals seems to confirm they were laughing at the post, not with it.  A curious use of your word 'libtards' though. Up until recently in Australia, the center-right Prime Minister was leader of the Liberal Party. 


  21. On 6/9/2022 at 4:12 AM, billvon said:

    Reducing Australia's carbon emissions AND US carbon emissions AND China carbon emissions etc etc. absolutely will reduce flooding and brushfires.

    Partial blackouts/brownouts now impacting parts of Australia, a country with some of the largest energy resources under their feet and this (below) is an indication of the emerging electorate in a country that contributes 1% to global emissions. I look forward to seeing this person protesting at the Chinese embassy ("wait.. what?"). 

    KimCarson.jpg


  22. 11 minutes ago, jakee said:

    Holy goalpost change batman! What educators are pushing it through schools and what exactly are they pushing?

    Are you genuinely still unaware that there's a push (even an existing practice) of teaching CRT in US schools? You've no idea why bill compared CRT to Holocaust studies?  51 pages into this thread and yourself and Olof are still at the starting blocks asking old questions about CRT?  If that's where you are then I can't engage with you further as you're either trolling or demonstrating an abject inability to follow the thread (and even some individual posts), neither of which I have patience for. 


  23. 2 hours ago, jakee said:

    And how is it a part of the original literature when it was put together 30 years after the beginnings of CRT?

    ?? Carefully read my part that you quoted, observing the punctuation too. You might realise that I made two separate literature references in that statement; the original work and the 'concise'.

    2 hours ago, jakee said:

    The people studying it are supposed to be lawyers.

    Tell that to the educators pushing it through schools.

    2 hours ago, jakee said:

    Is maths bad because it's taught by mathematicians, not historians?

    Non sequitur.  My statement that you replied you stands.

    3 hours ago, olofscience said:

    So which bit of this do you think is bad?

    Nothing. I think my statement that you're replying to was fine in all respects.


  24. 5 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Which CRT courses did you take?

    Zero. I didn't take courses on Lord of the Rings either, although it was a good read. Taking courses is not a requirement for knowing the nature of the authors and the content. Which 'Great Replacement Theory' courses did you take?

    • Like 1