nihilisticbuddha-blog

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Are we surprised tho

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Health care is a human right.

There’s literally no justifying to why it costs SO MUCH

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Health care is a human right.

There’s literally no justifying to why it costs SO MUCH

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Day Five Hundred And Fifty-One

Today, Donald Trump proposed a new theory about Russia. He tweeted that he’s very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming election; they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats because no one has been tougher on Russia than Trump. They definitely don’t want Trump! Maybe they want Mike Pence as he is always focused on the United States of America and not on Russia? Well, whatever the answer may be, Trump has also offered a piece of pure wisdom to us today: “What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening.” It’s time to become blind…

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Two new studies have confirmed that farmers can win both ways, achieving a boost in harvests and helping to slow climate change.

One says that they can successfully farm with techniques that can help slow global warming and add to the store of carbon sequestered in the soils around the globe.

And a second study confirms that a range of tested and sustainable practices is already stepping up yields in small farms worldwide, while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, soil erosion and pesticide use.

Both studies address a planetary dilemma. Global agriculture is at serious risk from global warming and climate change driven by profligate fossil fuel combustion. But global agriculture – powered by greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels, ploughing, pesticides and herbicides – is also helping to drive global warming and climate change.

Massive changes needed

And while researchers have persistently argued that it should be possible both to feed the 9bn people expected by 2050, and to contain global warming to no more than 2°C by 2100, such advances can be achieved only by massive changes in diet and expectations. But both new studies focus on what is both practicable and possible right now.

US researchers report in the journal Science Advances that they have identified a range of well-established farming practices that – if adopted by everybody – could capture enough carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the world’s soils at a rate that could make a significant difference.

They suggest that simple approaches – cover crops, more thoughtful use of grazing animals, the planting of legumes on rangelands and so on – could, if coupled with dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, notionally add as much as 1.78 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere to soils, lowering temperatures by 0.26°C. Since 1880, global average temperatures have already risen by about 1°C.

More tentatively, they suggest that if farmers added biochar – the residue of crops burned to make charcoal – to their soils, this could reduce global warming by as much as 0.46°C.

“I’m impressed by how far farmers across the world and especially in less developed countries have come in moving our food-production systems in a healthy direction”

Massive shifts to renewable energy worldwide would also be necessary: ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make changes in farming practices proportionately ever less effective. The bonus is that more carbon drawn down from the atmosphere and stored in the soil would pay off with healthier soils and better crop conditions.

“These are very commonly used approaches, though people don’t use them to sequester carbon – they are doing it for other reasons”, said Whendee Silver, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of California at Berkeley, and one of the authors.

“Any time you increase the organic content of soils, you are generally increasing the fertility, water-holding capacity, sustainability, decreasing erosion and increasing general resilience to climate change. Sequestering carbon is a side benefit.”

Costs lowered

In the same week, scientists from five nations reported in the journal Nature Sustainability that they could show that farming practices that show consideration for the global environment can and do deliver more food at lower costs.

Enthusiasts and environmentalists have been promoting “organic” or sustainable farming for decades. What the scientists call “sustainable intensification” is already employed in around a tenth of the world’s farmlands.

They looked at data and reports from 400 sustainable intensification initiatives – agroforestry is one example – used on either more than 10,000 farms or over 10,000 hectares of farmland. Altogether, their survey covered an estimated 163 million farms.

And their study showed that productivity went up, biodiversity and ecosystem services were conserved, yet costs were down.

Food for all

In West Africa, farmers were growing more cassava and maize. In Cuba, 100,000 farmers had stepped up yields by 150% while reducing pesticide use by 85%.

“Although we have a long way to go, I’m impressed by how far farmers across the world and especially in less developed countries have come in moving our food-production systems in a healthy direction,” said John Reganold, a soil scientist at Washington State University in the US, and one of the authors.

“Stronger government policies across the globe are now needed to support the greater adoption of sustainable intensification farming systems so that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by all members of the UN are met by 2030.

“This will help provide sufficient and nutritious food for all, while minimising environmental impact and enabling producers to earn a decent living.”

#politics

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Opinion: Midichlorians make The Force better

One thing I have heard as a hated aspect of Episodes One was the inclusion of Midichlorians as a measurable way to see how much sensitivity one has to The Force. And I don't get it. The concept doesn't detract from its impact on the world around it. In fact, I argue it strengthens the imanence of The Force beyond a magic plot device. It also works in the genre. It makes The Force measureable. It adds science to the fiction. But, in the process, I suppose it would do to it what science would do to god if it was found to exist- it deminishes the status of The Force from an omnipresent and transcendental thing to a force of nature but that doesn't mean its not awe inspiring and unworthy of respect.

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Researchers have confirmed, once again, that a warmer world is likely to have hungrier insects. The new predators could increase their share of the harvest of wheat, rice and maize by up to 25%.

That is, for every 1°C rise in average temperature, aphids, beetles, borers, caterpillars and other crop pests could increase their consumption of grain by between one tenth and one quarter.

And with a 2°C rise above the average temperature for most of human history – the target set by 195 nations in Paris in 2015 – additional global losses of grain to insect pests could reach 213 million tonnes a year.

For once, the steepest losses could be experienced in the temperate zones, home to the richest nations, rather than in the poorest communities. The reasoning is simple, and the scientists spell it out with a clarity not normally found in scientific prose.

“Our choice now is not whether or not we will allow warming to occur, but how much warming we are willing to tolerate.”

“First, an individual insect’s metabolic rate accelerates with temperature, and an insect’s rate of food consumption must rise accordingly,” they write.

“Second, the number of insects will change, because population growth rates also vary with temperature.” And for that reason, insect numbers in the tropics might decline, but pest numbers in the cooler regions will rise.

Curtis Deutsch of the University of Washington in Seattle and colleagues report in the journal Science that they set themselves the challenge of calculating potential crop losses to insect pests in a warmer world.

They took what is already known about 38 insect species from different latitudes, and the data for harvests over recent decades. About one third of all crops are lost to pests, diseases and weed competition: the point of the study was to isolate the impact of insect predation under a scenario of global warming.

Tropical impact lessened

Most crops are lost in the tropics, but the extra appetite in tropical pests could be offset by reduced numbers as the thermometer rises.

France, China and the US – the countries that produce most of the world’s maize – could experience the most dramatic crop losses from insect pests. France produces much of the world’s wheat, China much of its rice: both crops will be hit hard.

Altogether the scientists calculate that with a 2°C rise – and average global temperatures have already risen by about 1°C – by 2050 the median increase in losses of yield across all climates could be 46% for wheat, 19% for rice and 31% for maize: all of it to ever-hungrier caterpillars, beetles and borers.

These percentages translate to 59 million tonnes for wheat, 92 million tonnes for rice and 63 million tonnes for maize.

Food security jeopardised

Such research is a fresh iteration of an increasingly familiar theme: the threat to food security in a world of climate change driven by ever-increasing use of fossil fuels to raise greenhouse gas ratios in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels. Insect predation however is not the only factor.

Repeatedly over the last decade, researchers have warned that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could affect the levels of protein, iron and zincdelivered by crop plants; that the greater extremes of heat that must accompany higher average temperatures could hit grain harvests and yields of fruit and vegetables.

Rice, wheat and maize between them provide a huge share of the world’s calorie intake. The three grains are staples for about 4 billion people, and the UN calculates that more than 800 million worldwide do not have enough to eat.

Most of these are in the developing world, and in the tropics. The twist in the latest research is that it predicts that the biggest losses will be in the well-off zones.

Guiding policy

Eleven European countries are expected to experience a 75% increase in insect-linked wheat losses: altogether, by 2050, insects could be consuming 16 million tonnes of wheat. The US could see a 40% increase in maize losses to pests, and farmers will lose 20 million tonnes in yield. Rice losses in China alone could reach 27 million tonnes.

Such studies are intended as a guide to help ministries of agriculture, crop research institutions and other national and civic governments to confront a future of climate change.

Crop scientists could start devising new farming strategies, and working on more resistant crop varieties. Nations could begin to deliver on promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I hope our results demonstrate the importance of collecting more data on how pests will impact crop losses in a warming world,” said Dr Deutsch, “because collectively, our choice now is not whether or not we will allow warming to occur, but how much warming we are willing to tolerate.”

#politics

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

The Problem with Daybreak

Disclaimer: This was not written by me. However the writer wanted to remain anonymous.

“Most articles written on Everquest 2 (EQ2) are by people that havenʼt truly played the game to its fullest, donʼt understand the core concepts of the stat side of the game, or the math that goes behind & playerʼs decisions of what is best to use in each situation. How each situation is different and how absolutely amazing the combat feels when you know what youʼre doing. How each fight is a competition with other players to see whoʼs better. Who is the best. Different skills being tested, who prepared more, who knows more about the game.  I think the way to best explain the annoyance with EQ2, is to explain what it used to be, and then what it is today. The understanding that games like this change over time is there, but what limiters do we set on these changes? How far can a company go from what you love before you no longer want to play?  Everquest 2 went from a game with a bustling community to a veritable wasteland not suddenly, but gradually, over many years and many failures. A company struggling to stay afloat, introducing more and more tactics to pull every last penny out of the game as they can. It started slowly, increasing prices for expansion packs that gave less and less, pay to win policies on researching abilities, and now even the ability to, in all reality, buy upgraded stats.  This sudden influx of stats to a minor few on top of an already inflated system has made competitive play between players nearly impossible. Unless you buy the upgrades too, you are not going to be on top. Players of similar skill level and same class, doubled, even tripled by the pay to win players that animosity towards them begins to burn with & true rage. Players quitting out of annoyance, out of the feeling that they simply donʼt make enough money to be competitive anymore.   There are time-gated mechanics that donʼt allow those that will work more to get rewards sooner, to play the way they want to. “Play your way.” Absolutely not, the slogan has been not but a joke for years now. “Play the way we say or donʼt play at all.” Is how it seems to be now. The company h&s been releasing content that cannot be completed due to an increasing number of bugs, despite beta testers pointing out exactly what is wrong. Itʼs no longer a competitive field, instead it is -whoever plays first on patch day will be the ones in the lead.  Communication between the player-base and the development team is seemingly at an all time high, but only if you donʼt have any criticism to offer. Constructive criticism is pushed aside like it was never said. An article on the game was able to have & conversation with Feldon, the man that ran EQ2Wire, a site for news - everything EQ2. He still maintains the EQ2u players site to this day, despite being banned from the forums and discord as well as no longer playing the game. Feldon was the one that introduced the EQ2 developers to discord. Feldon said in that interview, “The idea was that it would augment the forums, add to the community, and allow players and developers to come together and share feedback about the game. This is not what happened. With each developer granted admin access, it quickly became clear that any criticism, no matter how politely phrased, was means for removal. After the devs withdrew from the forums, the Discord channel, the main place for players to ask questions, an exclusive developer-run ‘clubʼ.”  This, this is the true state of the game tod&y. A decaying cashcow to the company that owns it, and a bittersweet memory of what it once was to veteran players. Is there any road back to the game we all once so enjoyed?” For me, however, I think this is a symptom of a bigger problem with Daybreak Games. The first problem is that they’re a corporation. What’s worse is they’re a corporation that is owned by a billionaire type Jeffery Epstein. What is the general nature of a corporation but to grow? I had gone through job reviews of the company. It appears that the management can be extremely erratic [1] and they had suffered extreme layoffs after Epstein’s acquisition.[2] As it were, it isn’t difficult to see what is going on. They’re putting all their eggs in a single basket. Its probably very easy to see the stagnation surrounding the MMO market [3]. Even World of Warcraft seems to be fading. And with the advent of PUBG and Fortnite, Daybreak realizes that their older IP: H1Z1 is the goose. Problem is… they neglect the rest. But, they can’t just abandon their other IPs. But those IPs have to turn a profit. And therein lies the Pay2Win. Funny that MatPat through out that point but who’d have thought it’d be put into practice on something that originally scaled far above Runescape, Maplestory and other MMOs. I’m sorry to say that there’s no room in Daybreak for ambitious projects. FACT CHECK: I do want to point out that Daybreak is by no means in dire straights. Last I checked, they were worth 32 billion dollars with a modest profit. I tried to find the current margins but I was thus far unable to. If anyone is able to do so, please comment with the link and I will amend this post accordingly.

1 https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Daybreak-Game-Company-EI_IE973097.11,32.htm 2 http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/02/11/daybreak-game-company-suffers-layoffs-san-diego-austin-studios/ 3 https://massivelyop.com/2017/10/01/global-chat-whats-going-on-with-daybreak/

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

A critical response

So… where to begin. Well… Let’s start off with this point –  You are oversimplifying to the point of it being ad hominem. Yes. I realize that fascism tends to be very sneaky but this is probably one of the worst ways to appeal against them. And I would imagine that people who don’t already believe in your ideology are not going to be enthusiastic to be accused of sympathizing or even apologizing for them. Additionally, there’s some blatant stupidity in this graphic that contradicts themselves. The most egregious thing is this part:

1)  Why are libertarians a problem? I noticed that the anarcho capitalists (minarchists) and the tea party are listed too. Or are you submitting that libertarians on either side of the spectrum (left or right) are somehow apologizing for these people? And the basis of the assertion is the belief in Freedom of Speech, right? David Pakman (a libertarian leftist) did do a segment on how this might be true. However, he rightfully posits that there is still no good reason to degrade their right to speaking because they’re saying odious opinions. However, he did say that there is a way that people, specifically on the Left, need to present them. You see, there is a difference between letting them spill their bile unchallenged and actually challenging their views aggressively and critically. This, he called, responsible interviewing. The ideas is to challenge the points as they come up. Now, of course, the “Today is Wednesday” argument can be used here. But this is problematic because it assumes that the audience is unable to critically assess the argument against logic and reasoning. AND by that logic, Shaun, Contrapoints and other Leftists who discuss or respond to the likes of Stefan Molyneux are also engaging in spreading the propaganda. Because even displaying their points gets the message out. So, that argument is invalid. Additionally, because of the internet, people who are thoughtful can be directed to references and, as we all know, facts tend to lean left. 2) Republicans/Third Party… This is very dishonest because it assumes that Republicans and independents as a caucus (not as Politicians) are somehow protecting fascism by their voting and agenda. This is stupid because many third parties are socialist parties. There’s even a communist party. What this statement basically says is “If you don’t vote democrat, then you’re helping nazis. lol The Green Party can’t win for losing, eh? Either they’re Russians or they’re nazi apologists. But the real irony is this… 3) You know. This whole segment of the graphic is basically this one point. Non-hillary voters/supporters. And yet… Hillary is a LITERAL NAZI according to your own infographic. She basically was on board with every war of aggression that she has seen at her desk as a senator and as Secretary of State [1]. Her husband was responsible for the repeal of Glass Steagall [2] as well as the Telecommunication Act of 1999 which laid the groundwork for Sinclair and the conservative takeover of talk radio [3] Obama, in which she was in his cabinet also expanded the NSA spying authority on Americans. Last I checked, she also was a practicing Christian. Although her voting record does not overtly display anything that would denote her as anti-secular. And lastly… The democratic party rigged elections to undemocratically elevate Hillary to being the nomination. She is a neoconservative warmonger. She is an aristocrat and authoritarian. She believes in American exceptionalism. And is a capitalist (as is the Democratic Party) Not to mention, her VP pick was Tim Caine. Who was to her right on issues. [4] So she is all the highlighted (at least by your logic.)

The rest is just painting people with a broad brush. You’re basically saying: If you don’t prescribe to a singular view, you are a fascist in some way, shape or form. While saying that to oppose fascism is to support the Democratic Party apologetically and uncritically. Also, while we’re at it… The founding fathers had many issues. There’s no denying that America’s inception was steeped in genocide, white superiority and genocide. But with that being said, we cannot deny that the result was a more perfect union that focused more on equality within rule of law over rule of authority. The actions of these vastly imperfect people were a stepping stone to a more humane government. We’re still working on it. We can look critically at our past without labeling them nonsensically. Antifa: I despise your methods. I do. But, I know why you are possibly… well… a necessary evil. Please realize, though, that by people spreading this nonsense about you, it makes you appear to be what you hate. Denounce this post. Its garbage and it makes enemies of the country, the Progressive Wing and the Socialist Parties that are clawing at the current establishment with which the fascists seek to subvert.  Sure. Many of the fascist examples are the real deal. But you have to attack the real fascists. Don’t shame everyone else. 1 http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation 3 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ81/pdf/PLAW-106publ81.pdf 4 http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Tim_Kaine.htm Original Tweet here: https://twitter.com/punningpundit/status/1041474046200709120 If you have a counter argument, please respond and cite your sources. I’m always open to learn. I reserve the right to mute the conversation if it becomes toxic. I won’t respond to personal attacks. Racism, ableism, or any insults based on inane qualities will be blocked. Thank you.

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

When I was little, I thought Republicans were the religious wingnut party and Democrats were the business party. So, even as a young girl I was wise to the reality of politics in the US

[nihilisticbuddha-blog]

Why Facebook and Twitter will still exist and Gab and Minds may yet disappear.

The mavericks of yesteryear have become today’s tyrants. Since the advent of the internet, which was largely constructed via public funding and then the “free market” has taken over and laid the groundwork for folks to create their own stake of digital land. I remember when the first AOL CDs were thrown ad nauseum to my family’s address. The connecting noises. All that. And now I, admittedly, feel lost when we lose connection! These days, we have huge multinational corporations with one or more versions of social networking sites. Well, after 2016, things started happening. Telling things. With the rise of ethnonationalists and the gaslighting Kekistan. Startling and violent changes began to afflict the internet. Google, as a whole, had giant ad boycotts and Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the like started feeling enormous pressures by externalities to take stronger action against things like hate speech and fake news. So, with demonetization, shadowbanning and outright banning growing more frequent and overt (rather than covert as they had been prior) people, mainly on the Political Right began postulating ideas on creating “free speech platforms” (the idea is idiotic but that’s for another post.) And so Gab.ai, Minds.com, bitchute and Vid.me came to exist. Well the latter is gone. And here’s why the rest will vanish, either into obscurity or fail as a business. First off. We have to look at Vid.me versus YouTube. Vid.me was an ambitious project that got quite a bit of publicity. I almost believed it would indeed gain traction. But it went bankrupt and dissolved. Then I learned something rather interesting. YouTube runs at a loss. [1] Twitter also runs on little in the way of profit [2] Facebook is profitable, this is true. But two things are true about these corporations. They’re already billion dollar ventures. They’re huge. And they can afford to run at losses. But sites like vid.me, minds and gab may not be able to keep up with the current market unless they can afford this. It doesn’t help any of their situations when people who hold their sites in esteem also tend to be people consistently viewed as disreputable or disgusting individuals. Which does not encourage the average person to want to use these alternatives. I do wish that corporations like Google and Twitter had better competition. Moreover, I wish that anti-trust laws would work. No business should be able to run at a consistent loss. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2970777/YouTube-roughly-breaking-nine-years-purchased-Google-billion-viewers.html [2] https://ycharts.com/companies/TWTR/profit_margin

September 17th, 2018 2:31am Politics Business Opinion YouTube Social Media Leftism Gab.ai vid.me minds.com bitchute technology feel free to correct me but cite evidence