Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...
Proposed responses to supposed man-made climate change are not free.
For example, if you're a rich American, you simply hop on the bandwagon and pay more for stuff. Buy a Tesla, live in the city, pay some extra taxes, etc.
You violated the HN guidelines badly by perpetuating this hellish and tedious flamewar. Please don't do that again.
Moreover, your comment history has many cases of being uncivil to others, as well as using HN for political battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please stop doing them? They destroy the things that this site is supposed to be for.
> All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.
You say this everywhere, we discussed this already. You have an unfounded, ignorant view of immigration. You are so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position.
And please, tell me why a tech news aggregator is the place for ignorant anti-immigration rhetoric?
What is wrong with immigration? What do you have against people looking to move to new countries. When someone moves, they pay taxes, they work, they contribute to society.
It's not easy to immigrate, and often smarter, better educated people are the ones who get to immigrate. It's a benefit for the country that gets a lot of immigrants (i.e. The US benefits from this a lot), and a detriment to the country that loses them. Often called brain drain.
Employers can choose who to hire, a smart employer won't care if the candidate is born in the same country as you, it has absolutely no bearing on their quality as a human, or the work they complete.
If you live in North America, aside from the aboriginals, everyone is descended from, or directly an immigrant. What makes you so much better than someone else looking to move?
Again, a tech news aggregator is not a place for ignorant opinions on, frankly, humans.
And your points are not valid, your point is simply that you don't want immigration. You aren't replying to facts about immigrants and immigration besides that it happens, and that people want it. We've all been immigrants at some point, so I don't see where you could possible come from in feeling so strongly about disallowing people from improving your country.
Because it seems you don’t even care to read before you attack.
As I mentioned before the facts are correct at least where I live.
The conclusions you can draw aren't necessarily correct.
But I think it would be correct to say that reducing the number of "native" westerners wouldn't help if they were replaced by an equal amount of other people with the same level of consumption.
Please don't engage in flamewars on Hacker News, please don't uncivilly attack others, and please don't use HN for political or ideological battle: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We ban accounts that do this repeatedly, and yours has. Moreover we've warned you before.
The facts are also that it is hard to migrate, and that immigrants normally have to be highly educated.
By "native" you don't mean aboriginal, do you? At the end of the day we are all just people, and it really shouldn't matter to any of us where they were born as long as they are moral and respect laws.
And s/he did so without accusing anyone of being "unfounded, ignorant".
And without accusing anyone of being "so locked into your position that it doesn't matter what you are shown, you will ignore it and instead fall back to your ignorant position."
Was it anti-immigration? I guess so. Was it off topic? Possibly, I'll let the mods decide.
An anti-immigrant stance is by definition unfounded and ignorant.
This is plain wrong (edit: as can be proved by looking up the definitions.)
If you said racist, then I would agree.
But there are a number of good reasons to be sceptical to certain kinds of large scale migrations.
Edit:
I know s/he is locked in their position because of how often they bring it up in threads all over HN.
You have just admitted to the same in this very thread.
It doesn't matter if I'm making an accusation. The other poster comments frequently on immigration on HN.
Commenting on immigration is not a crime. If you think a comment is somehow against the guidelines then flag it: the mods here are pretty fair (and can flame people way better than anyone of us).
Data-gathering companies can and do co-operate, or someone wanting to learn something can just buy the data from several of them - price per bit of data should be the same. So breaking them up isn't really a solution to this problem.
As for why monopolies aren't getting broken up, I'd say a combination of increased corporate control of government, and global trade necessitating ever larger companies to compete, because tariffs are 'evil'.
What I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike"
My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
The missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.
> claiming that thanks to cryptography the world of intelligence was “going dark”. Quite the opposite was true [...] Twenty years ago it cost over a thousand pounds a day to follow a suspect around, and weeks of work to map his contacts; Ed Snowden told us how nowadays an officer can get your location history with one click and your address book with another. In fact, searches through the contact patterns of whole populations are now routine.
Funny how the massively increased surveillance never prompted cops and spy agencies to ask for more limited powers, but the smallest hint of encryption has them crying for even more invasive powers.
No 100% accurate license-plate reader exists - and that includes human eyesight. Showing license identification confidence levels, as the author's code does, is far better at dissuading the cops from over-reliance on the tool, than pretending no mistakes will ever be made.
Imagine if some non-US government voided Intel and AMD's patents as a self-defence measure against these probably-backdoored 'features'. Why should they protect the profits of hostile corporations?
In that specific hate-inciting speech Geert Wilders was calling for fewer Moroccans. And this is primarily directed towards Dutch people with a Moroccan background who've already live in the Netherlands for decades or are second-generation immigrants. There is virtually no immigration from Morocco, in 2015 approximately 1% of the immigrants arriving in The Netherlands was Moroccan [1].
Criticising past immigration is something different than inciting an audience to chant to reduce the number of Dutch citizens with a specific background.
Most political parties in The Netherlands have talked about the problems of immigration and integration in The Netherlands at least since Pim Fortuyn 15 years ago. Some parties longer (e.g. Frits Bolkenstein of the VVD, who Geert Wilders worked for). So, it is by no means illegal to talk about current or past immigration policies.
Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...
FUD works both ways.