Gulf Stream slowdown

[FF]

"Big tech is not a source of information. It creates no content. It is merely a clearinghouse of information derived from other sources no different than a print library."

Big Tech filters info making it EZ to find their point of view and harder to find a different point of view . Sometimes the filter is simply blocking content it doesn't like.

B-T can also promote a tiny loud minority ,

"How the Intolerant Minority Dictates Society

Author and Scholar Nassim Taleb shows how a group as small as 4 percent of the population can influence the entire population to submit to their preferences.

[T]he formation of moral values in society doesn't come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance.

Taleb's minority rule suggests that all it takes is a small number of intolerant virtuous people with skin in the game, in the form of courage, for society to function differently.
Big idea: A small, intolerant minority can make an entire population submit to their preferences.

Source: Nassim Taleb, Medium (26 min read)"

 

[O C Diver]

Ted. Thoughtful way? What are your thoughts on how to get rid of 75% of the world's population? Which goes first? Using your logic, the US should be wiped out 100% based on the percentage of resources we consume. Will you step up and volunteer?

So is your liberal response to just keep denying that the problem exists?

One of the most basic rules of nature is that an excessively large population of one species usually gets reduced by a die off relative to lack of food or the increase of a predator population. In our case, it will most likely be a disruption of the food chain or a virus / pestilence. Pretty tough to control millions avoiding starvation or a plague maybe 10 times covid strength.

Ted

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. "...little opposition from citizens and no government interference helps the construction schedule a lot."


The citizens have no choice. Whatever the government does, it's for "the good of the people", whether it is or it isn't. I would put big $$ on the fact that the PRC is heavily involved in the nuke plant constructions either through direct oversight by PRC officials or some official(s) being the recipient of bribes. The speed of construction is determined by the PRC and IF the PRC says a plant will be built in a year, it will, regardless of quality or safety. It will be built to "good enough" standards.


We stayed in a 5 star(?) hotel in one of the smaller cities (12 million). It was a magnificent structure built in the classical style with gilded dragons under the eaves and massive carved beams in the atria. Marble floors and walls. VERY ornate.
I don't think there was one door in our suite that closed properly. The bathtub was simply a vessel to momentarily contain water before it ran all over the floor. The wall immediately behind the headboard in the master bedroom didn't even have drywall on it BUT was hidden by said headboard. Only one of the four windows could be opened, and once opened, couldn't be closed. VERY fancy and "good enough".

 

[sunchaser]

RT
What was behind the headboard?

With China now a major producer and owner of auto companies involved in international sales the QA QC outcomes will be an interesting watch. Ditto their emerging airliner construction competition with Boeing.

Both of these industries are huge consumers and users of energy and raw materials, segments which the US has legislatively put on the back burner for years.

 

[Hippocampus]

This post is going to be politically incorrect and piss off both liberals and conservatives. It speaks to population control.
Back in the mid 80s a sociologist published an editorial at the back of scientific American.
Her premise was in first world countries the biologic quotient was no longer operative for humans. In short the basic underpinning of evolution-survival of the fittest -no longer applied.
Throughout human history how many children you had that were able to survive long enough to reproduce was determined by your ability to fed them, keep them in adequate shelter, keep them in an environment that had low risk of disease, and their ability to resist disease . So those parents who were healthy were more fecund. Those who were intelligent were more likely to make enough money to feed their kids and keep them safe from harm. Or they needed to be strong and vibrant and able to work a trade or farm successfully.
With the intervention of social programs, ability to treat chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, hypertension etc.), but inability to afford a healthy diet or socially advance an inversion of the biologic drivers for number of children has occurred.
In English at present and for quite awhile the smarter, richer, and healthier you are the fewer children you have. Her premise is over time there will be genetic drift into two sub groups with the resultant income inequality and increasing differentiation between these groups.
Her logic would endorse easily available birth control and abortion to slow this process. Curtailing social programs or take measures to enhance only having children if you could afford to give them adequate resources for full development.

Of course she was hung out to dry. She was fully tenured so stayed employed but was ostracized.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr s. Wooden studs. Looked like 2X6's.

 

[O C Diver]

RT
What was behind the headboard?

With China now a major producer and owner of auto companies involved in international sales the QA QC outcomes will be an interesting watch. Ditto their emerging airliner construction competition with Boeing.

Both of these industries are huge consumers and users of energy and raw materials, segments which the US has legislatively put on the back burner for years.

I believe their airliner business is in a partnership with Boeing. My son inlaw and his family are in China (3 year contract) teaching the Chinese to do certain parts of airliner construction. I don't believe that all components are built there due to a recognized quality control problem.

Ted

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. OC. Correct. With foreign QC assurance, the Chinese CAN produce an excellent product but for domestic consumption good enough is good enough. Just my sense and opinion.

 

[O C Diver]

This post is going to be politically incorrect and piss off both liberals and conservatives. It speaks to population control.
Back in the mid 80s a sociologist published an editorial at the back of scientific American.
Her premise was in first world countries the biologic quotient was no longer operative for humans. In short the basic underpinning of evolution-survival of the fittest -no longer applied.
Throughout human history how many children you had that were able to survive long enough to reproduce was determined by your ability to fed them, keep them in adequate shelter, keep them in an environment that had low risk of disease, and their ability to resist disease . So those parents who were healthy were more fecund. Those who were intelligent were more likely to make enough money to feed their kids and keep them safe from harm. Or they needed to be strong and vibrant and able to work a trade or farm successfully.
With the intervention of social programs, ability to treat chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, hypertension etc.), but inability to afford a healthy diet or socially advance an inversion of the biologic drivers for number of children has occurred.
In English at present and for quite awhile the smarter, richer, and healthier you are the fewer children you have. Her premise is over time there will be genetic drift into two sub groups with the resultant income inequality and increasing differentiation between these groups.
Her logic would endorse easily available birth control and abortion to slow this process. Curtailing social programs or take measures to enhance only having children if you could afford to give them adequate resources for full development.

Of course she was hung out to dry. She was fully tenured so stayed employed but was ostracized.

I have often thought the same thing. The best and the brightest realize the increasing expense of raising children to excel and be productive members of society, so they have less with each generation. My parents had 4. I had 2. My step daughters each had 1. Those that aspire to live on welfare don't bare the burden of funding children and are rewarded with each addition. Sort of the opposite of "survival of the fittest ".

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

Disagree with one statement

Don’t think anyone aspires to be on welfare.

Spent my life caring for these people. They are people, good people just a very few bad. Same as any economic class in that regard.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. (Dr.) H. FULLY agree. All too many are caught in the welfare/poverty circuit with no viable, available exit. Some escape but a lot don't.

 

[sunchaser]

Bonjour

Interesting indeed.
“ Without the warm North Atlantic Drift, the UK and other places in Europe would be as cold as Canada, at the same latitude. For example, without this steady stream of warmth the British Isles winters are estimated to be more than 5 °C cooler, bringing the average December temperature in London to about 2°C. ”

https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/North-Atlantic-Drift-Gulf-Stream.htm

To get back on track--

Yup, just like the deep freeze that hit Northern Europe about 1700 years ago when the GC did its "1,000" year slow down and speed up. The Japanese current does the same with both currents conspiring to open and close the Northwest Passage.

 

[O C Diver]

Disagree with one statement

Don’t think anyone aspires to be on welfare.

Spent my life caring for these people. They are people, good people just a very few bad. Same as any economic class in that regard.

Yes there are. There are also those who aspire to be on disability for life. This doesn't mean they intentionally hurt themselves, only that they wish to convert an injury into a retirement program. This isn't a comment on gender, race, or any specific group.

Unfortunately, there is zero incentive for most workers in welfare programs to transition people off. When living in Maryland, there was a push on the Eastern shore for seniors to get on the food assistance program, regardless of your financial situation. Larger numbers represented job security and locked in voters to maintain government entitlements.

Don't want to see anyone go hungry or live in poverty, but the Great Society has done nothing in 40 years to prevent people from ending up on welfare (same percentage or more as 40 years ago).

Ted

 

[SteveK]

This post is going to be politically incorrect and piss off both liberals and conservatives. It speaks to population control.
Back in the mid 80s a sociologist published an editorial at the back of scientific American.
Her premise was in first world countries the biologic quotient was no longer operative for humans. In short the basic underpinning of evolution-survival of the fittest -no longer applied.
Throughout human history how many children you had that were able to survive long enough to reproduce was determined by your ability to fed them, keep them in adequate shelter, keep them in an environment that had low risk of disease, and their ability to resist disease . So those parents who were healthy were more fecund. Those who were intelligent were more likely to make enough money to feed their kids and keep them safe from harm. Or they needed to be strong and vibrant and able to work a trade or farm successfully.
With the intervention of social programs, ability to treat chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, hypertension etc.), but inability to afford a healthy diet or socially advance an inversion of the biologic drivers for number of children has occurred.
In English at present and for quite awhile the smarter, richer, and healthier you are the fewer children you have. Her premise is over time there will be genetic drift into two sub groups with the resultant income inequality and increasing differentiation between these groups.
Her logic would endorse easily available birth control and abortion to slow this process. Curtailing social programs or take measures to enhance only having children if you could afford to give them adequate resources for full development.

Of course she was hung out to dry. She was fully tenured so stayed employed but was ostracized.

OMG, I must be losing my mind.
I actually agree with what you have said.
This is a fact in evidence where I live.

 

[KnotYet]

Ted, just a little confused over the date you mentioned.
The Great Society was Lyndon Johnson's big deal from 56 years ago. Starting about
40 years ago was Reagan's 'supply-side economics' which reduced taxation and cut
social program spending which resulted in more people becoming impoverished, etc.

 

[Hippocampus]

Gentlemen please understand I did not express my view of this analysis. I only offered it to inform the discussion about population control.

 

[O C Diver]

Ted, just a little confused over the date you mentioned.
The Great Society was Lyndon Johnson's big deal from 56 years ago. Starting about
40 years ago was Reagan's 'supply-side economics' which reduced taxation and cut
social program spending which resulted in more people becoming impoverished, etc.

Your correct, 56 years of the same percentage on welfare.

Ted

 

[KnotYet]

Your correct, 56 years of the same percentage on welfare.

Ted

You're incorrect; the percentage of the population on welfare has actually increased.

It would seem that you're implying that aid to the poor has no effect - impossible to
determine since we don't know how many more would now be poor without the aid.

More likely is that the combination of ever higher prices for shelter, food and health
care have driven ever more people to seek public assistance. Now, of course, with
the current pandemic there are even more people struggling and in need.

 

[kthoennes]

I lost my grip on this thread a while ago when it dove into the persistent and ultimately pointless debate (on a boating forum) about world population growth, but as an amusing counterpoint to all those who say the planet is going to collapse: Ooo, "science," "experts" are quoted in this article so of course this has to be correct, because we all know science is an ethereal, pure, absolute authority with no messy, subjective, political, human agenda:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/declining-birth-rate-younger-generations-crisis/

They're "sounding the alarm!!!" Somebody please tell Greta Thunberg, quick. (Do scientists ever make a boring, mundane announcement lately, don't they get tired of predicting doom every day?)

And finally, just because I can't resist, once again I have to mention the astounding hypocrisy and irony of anyone who owns a fuel-sucking, raw-materials-consuming, first world, 3%-of-the-planet-can-afford-it boat, arguing about income inequality, overpopulation, and resource depletion. But then Barbra Streisand and Bill Gates never do fly coach and still don't let homeless people sleep in their mansions.

 

[fryedaze]

Is it just me, or has TF changed. There seems to be a lot of debate about non boating subjects in the Fox vs MSBC style format. I wonder if it will get worse over time just like other social media garbage.

 

[Hippocampus]

Hope not.

 

[catalinajack]

Certain threads, yes, but very few.

Is it just me, or has TF changed. There seems to be a lot of debate about non boating subjects in the Fox vs MSBC style format. I wonder if it will get worse over time just like other social media garbage.

 

[Lou_tribal]

... and meanwhile, after 131 posts, the North Atlantic Current is still circulating ... but slower.

L

 

[Larry M]

Folks please, can we stay on topic and not talk about government policy?

Thanks for understanding.

 

[Hippocampus]

Been utilizing the Gulf Stream for decades and stressing to avoid wind against water as well. Have spent time racing to Bermuda where understanding breakouts, curls and eddies is the major determinant of where you place.
Wonder how this slowing and possible eventual reversing of the Stream is effecting the organization of the Stream now. You look at the NOAA downloads of current or temperature before and during passage. It doesn’t seem that different to my uneducated eye. I think their analysis has a reasonably high likelihood of being correct but wonder what I’m missing when I look at it in recent years. Is it the switch just hasn’t been flipped and there’s no prodrome I’m likely to see. Or is it I’m unsophisticated enough as to not appreciate the current minute changes?

 

[Baker]

Is it just me, or has TF changed. There seems to be a lot of debate about non boating subjects in the Fox vs MSBC style format. I wonder if it will get worse over time just like other social media garbage.

We are doing our best. Just feel free to report something when it gets off subject and we will try to correct it.

 

[SteveK]

Is it just me, or has TF changed. There seems to be a lot of debate about non boating subjects in the Fox vs MSBC style format. I wonder if it will get worse over time just like other social media garbage.

Are you proposing censorship in a country where freedom of speech is the first amendment?

Harbor Chat is a great place to go for off topic discussions with otherwise like minded individuals (boaters). There could be a sub forum called 'Off Topic' with a caveat you enter at your own risk, no snowflakes need apply.

Some of us remember history and care not to repeat it. Right now there are childrens books we grew up with that are being banned by the feel good crowd for heavens sake. Remember WW2 and the outrage at piles of books going up in flames.

We all have an opinion based on our own beliefs. Ignoring the opinions of others is not the way the free world so live.

 

[Baker]

Are you proposing censorship in a country where freedom of speech is the first amendment?

Harbor Chat is a great place to go for off topic discussions with otherwise like minded individuals (boaters). There could be a sub forum called 'Off Topic' with a caveat you enter at your own risk, no snowflakes need apply.

Some of us remember history and care not to repeat it. Right now there are childrens books we grew up with that are being banned by the feel good crowd for heavens sake. Remember WW2 and the outrage at piles of books going up in flames.

We all have an opinion based on our own beliefs. Ignoring the opinions of others is not the way the free world so live.

With all due resepct sir, a forum is not a "free place" nor is it a democracy or a republic. It is a place with rules. You follow the rules, everything is cool. If you don't follow the rules, your posts will be deleted and if the moderators have time, we might send you a message explaining why. And if you become a pain in the ass to the moderators as a repeat offender, you may find yourself "scraping paint". So all we ask is to simply follow the rules. The stuff that is off limits at the dinner table of a friend with other unknown guests present is the same stuff that is off limits here. It is that simple.

Also one of the rules here is discussion of how we moderate the forum. So please don't go there. Thanks!

 

[SteveK]

With all due resepct sir, a forum is not a "free place" nor is it a democracy or a republic. It is a place with rules. You follow the rules, everything is cool. If you don't follow the rules, your posts will be deleted and if the moderators have time, we might send you a message explaining why. And if you become a pain in the ass to the moderators as a repeat offender, you may find yourself "scraping paint". So all we ask is to simply follow the rules. The stuff that is off limits at the dinner table of a friend with other unknown guests present is the same stuff that is off limits here. It is that simple.

Also one of the rules here is discussion of how we moderate the forum. So please don't go there. Thanks!

Baker, with all due respect, I was not replying to you.
I agree with you about forum rules. I was asking for specifics that offended the poster. I thought my post was clear enough.

 

[Bacchus]

Baker, with all due respect, I was not replying to you.
I agree with you about forum rules. I was asking for specifics that offended the poster. I thought my post was clear enough.

"Are you proposing censorship in a country where freedom of speech is the first amendment?"

Soo-Valley
The topic of freedom of speech relative to TF has been covered many, many times. IT DOES NOT APPLY.

Anyone is free to their speak their mind on any street corner in the USA. It does not apply to TF nor any other form of media... they have no responsibility to print, broadcast, or distribute anything they don't want.

So you are welcome to take the repeated argument against censorship and for free speech to any street corner. To repeat it here on TF can be disruptive to members and is neither welcome nor appropriate.
Its been addressed... if you agree with the rules-drop it!