As a species we're not noted for recognising our own best interests. A Tory MP the other day got up to say his constituents didn't care about global warming and wanted cheap petrol. His constituency is predicted to be flooded regularly come 2030.
You see, THEN it will be a problem. Now, it's not. In ten years time, they'll scream for assistance, but until then, cheaper fuel rates.
Seems to be a defining feature of non-wealthy conservatism, the inability to think beyond the immediate.
When you have to deal with problems that are even longer than the usual time frames politicians think in, term lengths, the usual mechanics just don't work. Even more so when it's problems that will take decades to fully play out, and where you won't see "anything change" (which is what you want in the case of climate change..), but have to pay a lot of money to do it.
When the problems come crushing down one day, everyone will look at our generation and say "why didn't they do anything? They knew.", and the only answer we will be able to give is "reactive government doesn't work when you have to take long term effects into account"
As a species we're not noted for recognising our own best interests. A Tory MP the other day got up to say his constituents didn't care about global warming and wanted cheap petrol. His constituency is predicted to be flooded regularly come 2030.
When you have to deal with problems that are even longer than the usual time frames politicians think in, term lengths, the usual mechanics just don't work. Even more so when it's problems that will take decades to fully play out, and where you won't see "anything change" (which is what you want in the case of climate change..), but have to pay a lot of money to do it.
When the problems come crushing down one day, everyone will look at our generation and say "why didn't they do anything? They knew.", and the only answer we will be able to give is "reactive government doesn't work when you have to take long term effects into account"
Yup. That's one of the reasons infrastructure tends to be problematic, at least locally (ie state level).
Everyone agrees that the road and rail networks need to be upgraded, and in a significant manner.
But to do so requires a massive investment, which requires raising revenue, or cutting services (as states can't really deficit spend), and so the party trying to do that will get hosed, and lose power.
So the incentive structure is completely changed to patching a few things to say you're doing something when you're in power, and complaining about the lack of real investment when you're not.
But the ability to pursue the kind of long term significant change that'd actually be cheaper, is completely hamstrung. Where I live, there's a highway that was "completed" about 40 years ago. And for most of my life, this highway has been "under construction", not for maintenance purposes, but to widen the road (initially two lane each way), and is now in the process of adding a fifth lane in my section.
The thing is, it was clear when it was constructed, it needed to be bigger. And when they added each lane, one extra lane wasn't going to be sufficient. But instead of starting with a four lane, and expanding it to six, it's been 3km lane expansions for nearly four decades, which has just ballooned the price, but each individual expenditure is less likely to see a voter revolt.
It's the Vimes Boots Theory applied to government spending.
One of the more poisonous effects of the culture war is that people hear "unsustainable" as "you're a bad person for doing this thing" as opposed to "there will come a point where you doing that thing can no longer be sustained and we need to plan for what happens then".
One of the more poisonous effects of the culture war is that people hear "unsustainable" as "you're a bad person for doing this thing" as opposed to "there will come a point where you doing that thing can no longer be sustained and we need to plan for what happens then".
I mean, this is entirely on purpose. The "culture war" exists to create infighting and distract people while the rich get even richer, so they can fuck off to their Mars colonies when shit hits the fan in 50 years, or whatever they dream about.
When you have to deal with problems that are even longer than the usual time frames politicians think in, term lengths, the usual mechanics just don't work. Even more so when it's problems that will take decades to fully play out, and where you won't see "anything change" (which is what you want in the case of climate change..), but have to pay a lot of money to do it.
When the problems come crushing down one day, everyone will look at our generation and say "why didn't they do anything? They knew.", and the only answer we will be able to give is "reactive government doesn't work when you have to take long term effects into account"
I think this blames politicians too much. As much as this is correct, it's even more true that voters don't think in those kind of longer term frameworks. The problem with the political system on stuff like climate change is what it needs is for the political class to at least implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) overrule the voters and work for their long term interests at the expense of their short-term interests.
Climate change denial is a pretty weird position for the Netherlands of all places. Half the country is below sea level as it is, even minor climate change related sea level rises are going to massively affect them.
You'd think if anyone would be screaming about doing everything to stick to 1.5c it would be them.
There are allready plans in place for how to "solve" this problem.
As always they are going for a technocratic solution.
The 4 adaptation pathways are the following:
From left to right: Closed Seawall, Open Seawall, Expand into the sea, do nothing and live on terps.
The thing is, you actually need to make a longterm decision en start investing in a solution.
In my opinion we are allready on course for the highest scenario.
At 2c warming the not so easily predictable landice melt comes into play, if we do nothing we will be hitting that point in 30 years. This will cause the sealevel to rise even faster.
Shell is moving its business from the Netherlands to the UK. Less taxes, easier buybacks, and I think recently they've been successfully sued by climate activists in the Netherlands, if I remember that correctly.
Get ready for Brexit success parties.
The EU has changed the rules on the infamous "dutch sandwich" tax avoidance technique to make it no longer viable. I suspect this is the main reason rather than their climate legal issues.
Amazon says UK customers will not be able to pay for goods using a Visa credit card from January, blaming a "high cost of payments".
It is understood Amazon is particularly angry at a rise in so-called interchange fees - additional cross-border costs - which it believes have risen five-fold since Brexit.
Is this what the sunlit uplands looks like?
+1
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
this is almost certainly a play to sell their own (mastercard) credit card.
The front on a multi billion dollar company saying it can't handle the transaction fees on a credit card. Can't pay it's employees fairly either, must be a bad business model.
I don't actually think it's unreasonable for a company to say "if you're increasing the fees from 0.3% per transaction to 1.5% then we'll no longer be accepting your method of payment". In fact I'd actually argue that if this move by Amazon gets Visa to reduce or stop the change then it's probably a good thing, since this will potentially harm small businesses substantially.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The front on a multi billion dollar company saying it can't handle the transaction fees on a credit card. Can't pay it's employees fairly either, must be a bad business model.
I don't actually think it's unreasonable for a company to say "if you're increasing the fees from 0.3% per transaction to 1.5% then we'll no longer be accepting your method of payment". In fact I'd actually argue that if this move by Amazon gets Visa to reduce or stop the change then it's probably a good thing, since this will potentially harm small businesses substantially.
Especially given that it's not the payment method that gets yelled at.
See it all the time on the internets. Someone bitching at a company how ridiculous shipping prices and import costs (like customs) are, as if it's the company themself that's charging VAT.
Sometimes it's better to just go "Yeah, this isn't worth the hassle and complaints".
Though it's Amazon, so it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for their position.
I don't actually think it's unreasonable for a company to say "if you're increasing the fees from 0.3% per transaction to 1.5% then we'll no longer be accepting your method of payment". In fact I'd actually argue that if this move by Amazon gets Visa to reduce or stop the change then it's probably a good thing, since this will potentially harm small businesses substantially.
Especially given that it's not the payment method that gets yelled at.
See it all the time on the internets. Someone bitching at a company how ridiculous shipping prices and import costs (like customs) are, as if it's the company themself that's charging VAT.
Sometimes it's better to just go "Yeah, this isn't worth the hassle and complaints".
Though it's Amazon, so it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for their position.
I don't really feel sorry for Amazon at all, Visa increased the cost for cross-border traffic BECAUSE it's way more expensive to do, this wasn't Visa turning the screws on Amazon, but just a consequences of Brexit. And it's not like Amazon would've eaten those costs, they'd happily forward those to the customers.
They just want Visa to eat the increased cost or they'll toss them out in January.
You see these large companies squeezing out suppliers all the time, only difference is that in this case it's not some local trucking company that's the victim, but Visa, a large company itself.
We'll see if customers care, because if Amazon's market share drops because they won't accept Visa, you'll see them quickly turn around and "after review, we'll allow our customers to use their preferred billing system."
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but does this also count for Visa debit cards? I have a debit card for my bank that's a Visa, so I'm assuming this would be affected because it uses the same payment process, even though it's not a "credit card" in the same way?
0
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but does this also count for Visa debit cards? I have a debit card for my bank that's a Visa, so I'm assuming this would be affected because it uses the same payment process, even though it's not a "credit card" in the same way?
According to the email i got from amazon, debits are fine still
One of the more poisonous effects of the culture war is that people hear "unsustainable" as "you're a bad person for doing this thing" as opposed to "there will come a point where you doing that thing can no longer be sustained and we need to plan for what happens then".
I mean, this is entirely on purpose. The "culture war" exists to create infighting and distract people while the rich get even richer, so they can fuck off to their Mars colonies when shit hits the fan in 50 years, or whatever they dream about.
Hyperbole, but not by much
You are giving far too much credit here for long term planning.
None of the people perpetuating the “culture war” have plans for 2025 let alone 2070
Miriam there is a whole flock of birds perched upon your nose. Miriam, we are not children, Miriam, stop fucking lying to us, and telling us that clouds are made of cotton wool, just because you say so.
She's a few steps from uttering some phrase about 'alternative facts', isn't she? :rotate:
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there are better ways to deliver rail infrastructure improvement that HS2, and it's probably true that smaller, targeted upgrade projects will deliver benefits more quickly.
However that doesn't get us away from the bare fact that it was promised, and is now being cut, or crucially, that the same logic can be applied to all of HS2, not just the northern leg, but the South gets to keep its bit
The other thing, as far as I understand, is that the schemes replacing the northern leg of HS2 don't deliver the same benefits on the same scale. They deliver some benefits, but from reading what has been written by people that know more than me, my understanding is that the capacity expansion HS2 was going to deliver is lost.
So the North maybe getsa rail system (for those places that have it) that is functional as opposed to shit, but that's still a hell of a downgrade relative to what was promised
One thing I love about that clip, is that when the guest starts going off on a bullshit tangent, or stating an outright lie, the audio gets cut out so that the presenter can restate the question, or counterpoint the argument, and if they go off again, cut the audio and keep going.
That Webster looks foolish mouthing words silently while the presenter gets to do her job, is just awesome.
REALLY wish the US media would do such a thing, and not just let the guest chew up time or shout down the host. Obviously, it can be abused, but fuck it, I'm so tired of politicians just waffling off bullshit talking points or deflecting, instead of answering the fucking question.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there are better ways to deliver rail infrastructure improvement that HS2, and it's probably true that smaller, targeted upgrade projects will deliver benefits more quickly.
However that doesn't get us away from the bare fact that it was promised, and is now being cut, or crucially, that the same logic can be applied to all of HS2, not just the northern leg, but the South gets to keep its bit
The other thing, as far as I understand, is that the schemes replacing the northern leg of HS2 don't deliver the same benefits on the same scale. They deliver some benefits, but from reading what has been written by people that know more than me, my understanding is that the capacity expansion HS2 was going to deliver is lost.
So the North maybe getsa rail system (for those places that have it) that is functional as opposed to shit, but that's still a hell of a downgrade relative to what was promised
It's the same self fulfilling prophesy that makes all infrastructure in the north less beneficial than taking that money and spending it in the south. The south gets all the infrastructure because that's where the greater concentration of people is, the people leave the rest of the country and concentrate there because that's where the infrastructure is.
Until someone is willing to break that cycle and take the short term hit all talk of "leveling up" and "northern power houses" will just be empty slogans and broken promises.
My preference would be for them to have 'technical difficulties' which result in the liar sounding like they got a mouthful of helium, but that's just my sense of humour.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+1
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there are better ways to deliver rail infrastructure improvement that HS2, and it's probably true that smaller, targeted upgrade projects will deliver benefits more quickly.
However that doesn't get us away from the bare fact that it was promised, and is now being cut, or crucially, that the same logic can be applied to all of HS2, not just the northern leg, but the South gets to keep its bit
The other thing, as far as I understand, is that the schemes replacing the northern leg of HS2 don't deliver the same benefits on the same scale. They deliver some benefits, but from reading what has been written by people that know more than me, my understanding is that the capacity expansion HS2 was going to deliver is lost.
So the North maybe getsa rail system (for those places that have it) that is functional as opposed to shit, but that's still a hell of a downgrade relative to what was promised
It doesn’t help that these propositions always terminate in the southest bit of the North
Call me when you plan a high speed line to Newcastle or Carlisle
At least a few people suggested in the planning stages that construction should start from the northern send of HS2, because starting from the south created too strong an incentive to ditch it once it got out of commuting range of London
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there are better ways to deliver rail infrastructure improvement that HS2, and it's probably true that smaller, targeted upgrade projects will deliver benefits more quickly.
However that doesn't get us away from the bare fact that it was promised, and is now being cut, or crucially, that the same logic can be applied to all of HS2, not just the northern leg, but the South gets to keep its bit
The other thing, as far as I understand, is that the schemes replacing the northern leg of HS2 don't deliver the same benefits on the same scale. They deliver some benefits, but from reading what has been written by people that know more than me, my understanding is that the capacity expansion HS2 was going to deliver is lost.
So the North maybe getsa rail system (for those places that have it) that is functional as opposed to shit, but that's still a hell of a downgrade relative to what was promised
It doesn’t help that these propositions always terminate in the southest bit of the North
Call me when you plan a high speed line to Newcastle or Carlisle
Pretty sure they're in the bit marked "Here Be Dragons" on the Westminster polticians' map.
At least a few people suggested in the planning stages that construction should start from the northern send of HS2, because starting from the south created too strong an incentive to ditch it once it got out of commuting range of London
Not to mention, it is a lot easier to get a hold of the necessary land when you're not in the most densely populated part of country or the NIMBY Tory shires.
Can't it just be that he's lazy and unprepared and often rambles on about bullshit because he thinks he's a charming raconteur? Not every mistake or stupid thing a minister says is part of a Machiavellian plan of misdirection.
Can't it just be that he's lazy and often rambles on about bullshit because he thinks he's a charming raconteur? Not every mistake or stupid thing a minister says is part of a Machiavellian plan of misdirection.
True, but his bumbling waffling does seem to notably increase the more scrutiny he's under for other things.
Kinda like my debilitating knee trouble that increased with physical proximity to rugby lessons at school.
Posts
You see, THEN it will be a problem. Now, it's not. In ten years time, they'll scream for assistance, but until then, cheaper fuel rates.
Seems to be a defining feature of non-wealthy conservatism, the inability to think beyond the immediate.
When the problems come crushing down one day, everyone will look at our generation and say "why didn't they do anything? They knew.", and the only answer we will be able to give is "reactive government doesn't work when you have to take long term effects into account"
They'll need all that petrol for boats.
Yup. That's one of the reasons infrastructure tends to be problematic, at least locally (ie state level).
Everyone agrees that the road and rail networks need to be upgraded, and in a significant manner.
But to do so requires a massive investment, which requires raising revenue, or cutting services (as states can't really deficit spend), and so the party trying to do that will get hosed, and lose power.
So the incentive structure is completely changed to patching a few things to say you're doing something when you're in power, and complaining about the lack of real investment when you're not.
But the ability to pursue the kind of long term significant change that'd actually be cheaper, is completely hamstrung. Where I live, there's a highway that was "completed" about 40 years ago. And for most of my life, this highway has been "under construction", not for maintenance purposes, but to widen the road (initially two lane each way), and is now in the process of adding a fifth lane in my section.
The thing is, it was clear when it was constructed, it needed to be bigger. And when they added each lane, one extra lane wasn't going to be sufficient. But instead of starting with a four lane, and expanding it to six, it's been 3km lane expansions for nearly four decades, which has just ballooned the price, but each individual expenditure is less likely to see a voter revolt.
It's the Vimes Boots Theory applied to government spending.
I mean, this is entirely on purpose. The "culture war" exists to create infighting and distract people while the rich get even richer, so they can fuck off to their Mars colonies when shit hits the fan in 50 years, or whatever they dream about.
Hyperbole, but not by much
I think this blames politicians too much. As much as this is correct, it's even more true that voters don't think in those kind of longer term frameworks. The problem with the political system on stuff like climate change is what it needs is for the political class to at least implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) overrule the voters and work for their long term interests at the expense of their short-term interests.
Apparently it's 26%.
Spoiler for big
There are allready plans in place for how to "solve" this problem.
As always they are going for a technocratic solution.
The 4 adaptation pathways are the following:
From left to right: Closed Seawall, Open Seawall, Expand into the sea, do nothing and live on terps.
The thing is, you actually need to make a longterm decision en start investing in a solution.
In my opinion we are allready on course for the highest scenario.
At 2c warming the not so easily predictable landice melt comes into play, if we do nothing we will be hitting that point in 30 years. This will cause the sealevel to rise even faster.
The EU has changed the rules on the infamous "dutch sandwich" tax avoidance technique to make it no longer viable. I suspect this is the main reason rather than their climate legal issues.
Is this what the sunlit uplands looks like?
I mean, they certainly could handle those fees.
They just won't
Especially given that it's not the payment method that gets yelled at.
See it all the time on the internets. Someone bitching at a company how ridiculous shipping prices and import costs (like customs) are, as if it's the company themself that's charging VAT.
Sometimes it's better to just go "Yeah, this isn't worth the hassle and complaints".
Though it's Amazon, so it's hard to feel any kind of sympathy for their position.
I don't really feel sorry for Amazon at all, Visa increased the cost for cross-border traffic BECAUSE it's way more expensive to do, this wasn't Visa turning the screws on Amazon, but just a consequences of Brexit. And it's not like Amazon would've eaten those costs, they'd happily forward those to the customers.
They just want Visa to eat the increased cost or they'll toss them out in January.
You see these large companies squeezing out suppliers all the time, only difference is that in this case it's not some local trucking company that's the victim, but Visa, a large company itself.
We'll see if customers care, because if Amazon's market share drops because they won't accept Visa, you'll see them quickly turn around and "after review, we'll allow our customers to use their preferred billing system."
According to the email i got from amazon, debits are fine still
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
pleasing
You are giving far too much credit here for long term planning.
None of the people perpetuating the “culture war” have plans for 2025 let alone 2070
Still, great work on the thread title, @Bogart !
Steam | XBL
Source: BBC.
Level up the north? Lol level up your mum.
Boris Johnson 18/11/2021
Miriam there is a whole flock of birds perched upon your nose. Miriam, we are not children, Miriam, stop fucking lying to us, and telling us that clouds are made of cotton wool, just because you say so.
She's a few steps from uttering some phrase about 'alternative facts', isn't she? :rotate:
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that there are better ways to deliver rail infrastructure improvement that HS2, and it's probably true that smaller, targeted upgrade projects will deliver benefits more quickly.
However that doesn't get us away from the bare fact that it was promised, and is now being cut, or crucially, that the same logic can be applied to all of HS2, not just the northern leg, but the South gets to keep its bit
The other thing, as far as I understand, is that the schemes replacing the northern leg of HS2 don't deliver the same benefits on the same scale. They deliver some benefits, but from reading what has been written by people that know more than me, my understanding is that the capacity expansion HS2 was going to deliver is lost.
So the North maybe getsa rail system (for those places that have it) that is functional as opposed to shit, but that's still a hell of a downgrade relative to what was promised
That Webster looks foolish mouthing words silently while the presenter gets to do her job, is just awesome.
REALLY wish the US media would do such a thing, and not just let the guest chew up time or shout down the host. Obviously, it can be abused, but fuck it, I'm so tired of politicians just waffling off bullshit talking points or deflecting, instead of answering the fucking question.
It's the same self fulfilling prophesy that makes all infrastructure in the north less beneficial than taking that money and spending it in the south. The south gets all the infrastructure because that's where the greater concentration of people is, the people leave the rest of the country and concentrate there because that's where the infrastructure is.
Until someone is willing to break that cycle and take the short term hit all talk of "leveling up" and "northern power houses" will just be empty slogans and broken promises.
It doesn’t help that these propositions always terminate in the southest bit of the North
Call me when you plan a high speed line to Newcastle or Carlisle
Pretty sure they're in the bit marked "Here Be Dragons" on the Westminster polticians' map.
Steam | XBL
Not to mention, it is a lot easier to get a hold of the necessary land when you're not in the most densely populated part of country or the NIMBY Tory shires.
The Prime Minister, everyone. This clip is getting absolutely ripped to shreds by the Westminster bubble right now.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Kinda like my debilitating knee trouble that increased with physical proximity to rugby lessons at school.