Understood though it was the reality of the 90's.
did it changed? yes absolutely, but you were tagged as a Lunatic, to introduce Linux in corporate environment.
You are right, it is odd (at least I think of it is), people don't really care about the name, though to be fair some people really think it is important, .com is so important, ok it is true for you, but reality is nobody cares, just focus on the product capabilties.
Because it might signal the beginning of a crisis, it signals that car are treated a lot like house were in the last financial crisis, under water means negative equity.
Lenders are willing to make the underwater loans, often charge with high interest rates. Many of the loans are bundled into bonds and snapped up by Wall Street investors therefore having supposedly a broader effect.
we live in a sensation world, articles like that are meant to have bold claims in the title, really nothing to see here.
As an early user of Alexa, unfortunately the technology is underwhelming. she does not understand names, she do not seem to improve while Google and Siri do actually, So yes Alexa Auto, or Alexa Show are good interesting devices, the reality is less rosy.
Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.
> what actions does she recommend
She recommends we listen to the science. Nothing more, nothing less.
How is it not? The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario. This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.
Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
> The IPCC models predict a > 4°C average temperature increase for the business-as-usual scenario.
“Business-as-usual” is not the most likely outcome. It completely neglects technological development trajectories which make something like 2.5 deg absolutely achievable by simple market forces without radical action. But in any case...
> This is means billions of people migrating across national boundaries and/or dead, extinction of most species, a dramatic reduction in farm land, tropical rainforests ceasing to exist. I doubt humanity's technological advances can be sustained when we can't even feed ourselves.
All of that is rampant speculation. THIS is what I’m calling out as non-consensus.
> Even a 2°C average increase is very, very bad, with intense weather events every year, countries like India not being able to support their population density, tropical rainforests turning into savannahs. It is also a mass extinction scenario.
That’s a strange thing to say. How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that higher temperatures mean more rainfall, higher CO2 levels mean better plant growth, and geologic record which indicates that when the earth was previously that much warmer it was covered pole-to-pole with lush tropical rainforests?
> Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.
Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.
