how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.

What inaction?

The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.

Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

Why would it have to be?

It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.

I already said start at the top and work your way down.

As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.

A lot of people simply don’t care

Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem

It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.

We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.

Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It’s not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it’s that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I’m not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).

But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.

While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products

This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

State companies are just as accountable

My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land

This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them

What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.

100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?

Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.

It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).

1. State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
2. It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?

How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.

It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.

the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases

That’s just nonsense.

1. The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not “megacorporations”
2. It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.

It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.

Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.

Well there’s some stuff on his Connextras

That’s why ~Everything is Securities Fraud~

Thus this custom of firing houses continued, till in process of time, says my manuscript, a sage arose, like our Locke, who made a discovery, that the flesh of swine, or indeed of any other animal, might be cooked… without the necessity of consuming a whole house to dress it.

From the 1888 A Dissertation Upon Roast Pig

Unfortunately the rest of it is pretty trash.

What? They still sell DVD players: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/blu-ray-dvd-players/dvd-players/abcat0102005.c?id=abcat0102005

This is almost precisely that. It’s 1% more than 3% per year over 10 years for mayor, and half that for the council members.

People probably mistakenly assumed the law was in good faith and would do something like ban hanging crosses around the classroom, not ban covering up part of your body. Calling head coverings “religious symbols” is flatly dishonest. Next up anybody who doesn’t eat bacon at every meal will be fired for forcing their religion on others.

A European starling called “The Mouth” was able to mimic sounds well enough to reproduce a drawing in the spectrograph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCQCP-5g5bo

Well they saved “258 million” people from fentanyl overdose in 100 days; finding half of them jobs in a week should be no problem.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pam-bondi-fentanyl-258m/

Those “richest people” lists are based on publicly known wealth, which is almost exclusively public stocks. There is a lot of dark money out there.

Strange things are afoot

Most of them are leaving. I think the ones remaining rely on bundling with other insurance or services.

Seems to mostly be called “Screaming Seagull” or “Inhaling Seagull”

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/inhaling-seagull

Paper is paywalled, but from the SciTech article it looks like mostly it was sodium sulfate. They did also make some “ocean-degradable plastics”.

Thanks for the link and breakdown.

It sounds like a better description of the estimated thinking speed would be 5-50 bits per second. And when summarizing capacity/capability, one generally uses a number near the top end. It makes far more sense to say we are capable of 50 bps but often use less, than to say we are only capable of 10 but sometimes do more than we are capable of doing. And the paper leans hard into 10 bps being a internally imposed limit rather than conditional, going as far as saying a neural-computer interface would be limited to this rate.

“Thinking speed” is also a poor description for input/output measurement, akin to calling a monitor’s bitrate the computer’s FLOPS.

Visual processing is multi-faceted. I definitely don’t think all of vision can be reduced to 50bps, but maybe the serial part after the parallel bits have done stuff like detecting lines, arcs, textures, areas of contrast, etc.