DivMan

@PlanetOfMemes Truth. And with a fast-growing tree plus some damn good fertilizer in that watering can.

@elonmusk You have no idea how thankful I am to see this happening in my lifetime.

Starship still tracking to fly tomorrow

@DschlopesIsBack I like the game very much, but this crap has always bothered me. Flopping to draw a penalty, writhing in pain only to pop up seconds later unscathed... Perhaps football needs an "orange card" where the player is sent off, but someone else can take his place.

All football (soccer) has to do is start giving red cards every single time someone flops or fakes an injury like this, with no exceptions. If they do this the soft bullshit will stop and I might actually start respecting the sport more.

@RealMattCouch Double standards are the only standards democrats have.

Ahhh Yes... the ole double standard..

@OwenGregorian When science stops questioning itself, it ceases to be science and becomes propaganda.

Climate consensus research is the worst, most invalid research ever published in journals | José Duarte PhD, Watts Up With That? And social “scientists” use it to mislead participants Consider the captivating journal article “An alternative carrier solvent for fingermark enhancement reagents”, published in Forensic Science International. It was counted as part of the purported 99% scientific consensus on human-caused climate change by Lynas, et al. (2021). It’s a paper about solvents for exposing fingerprints. It has nothing to do with climate science or the focused empirical question of human contributions to the observed warming. Why was it included? It was included because it mentioned global warming in its abstract. I kid you notly. This obviously hints at a deeper problem. Why would a journal article be counted as part of a “consensus” to begin with (since the unit of consensus is people, not articles), why is the abstract relevant, who cares if an abstract mentions global warming, and how could a paper about fingerprint solvents possibly be included? (You can read the abstract in the Appendix below.) It’s not an outlier. Here are some other articles that were counted as relevant “climate science” papers and included in the false 99% estimate: - “Climate justice, small island developing states & cultural loss”. This is a political philosophy paper that applies the leftist construct of “climate justice”, written by a random political theory lecturer in Ireland. - “Calcium leaching from waste steelmaking slag: Significance of leachate chemistry and effects on slag grain mineralogy”. This is a paper about calcium leaching from steelmaking slag. - “Properties and corrosion behaviors of mild steel in biodiesel-diesel blends”. This is a paper about steel. - “Comparison of refrigerated warehouse energy demand with R-717 and R-507 using eQUEST model”. This is a paper about a refrigerant comparison test in a Cincinnati warehouse. None of these papers have anything to do with climate science. Some of them have nothing to do with science. What happened here? This climate change consensus study was conducted by leftist activists who did the following: 1. Not knowing how to perform a literature search or a systematic review on pertinent climate science questions, they simply searched the academic literature for the keywords “climate change”, “global climate change”, and “global warming”. 2. They took a random sample of 3,000 of the resulting papers and had their team of lay activists read the abstracts — just the abstracts. 3. Their team of activists rated the abstracts on whether they took a position on human-caused warming and their level of endorsement of the proposition that humans are causing warming. 4. They then counted the papers/abstracts they scored as endorsing the proposition and divided that by the total that they claimed took a position on the topic. They called the resulting percentage the “scientific consensus” on human-caused climate change. Why would anyone do this? It’s not a method known to science and has no name. It’s not a remotely valid way to measure a consensus on any topic. It’s a spurious recreational activity that has no epistemic standing — it tells us nothing about anything. As “research” published in a peer-reviewed journal article, it’s completely insane and marks an unprecedented collapse of scientific standards. We don’t care about anyone’s subjective ratings of abstracts with respect to the authors’ views on a topic. That’s not anything. Given that Lynas and friends counted a fingerprint solvent paper and several steelmaking papers as relevant climate science research, they lack the intelligence to even implement their invalid method properly. But even if restricted to relevant climate change attribution papers, their method would still be invalid — it would still be spurious recreational activity that has no place in a peer-reviewed journal. We simply can’t do anything with a count of papers based on someone’s opinions of their abstracts, the set based on a keyword search, or any subsequent acts of division or other arithmetic. That’s not anything. Yet this study was widely promoted by legacy leftist media like the Guardian: These activists didn’t come up with this on their own. They copied the method from the infamous 97% consensus paper by Cook, et al. (2012), which was also fraudulent in addition to being invalid. It was Cook who had the deranged idea of having lay leftist activists working from home (including the founder of Timbuk2 luggage) rate the abstracts of thousands of irrelevant journal articles they didn’t understand, based on “climate change” keyword matching. Cook’s 97% “climate science consensus” includes a welding paper by Volvo engineers, several other steelmaking papers, several diarrhea papers, an article on cooking stove use, etc. (more here) But again, the deeper issue is that the core method of rating and counting abstracts is irreparably invalid. The same journal — Environmental Research Letters — published both of these papers. To measure the consensus on human-caused warming, we’d survey relevant climate scientists with smart, focused, well-written questions on human causation, the likely extent of any human contribution, confidence in various future projections and scenarios, confidence in any effects on non-warming variables like extreme weather, hurricanes, etc. The unit of consensus is people, not papers — papers cannot be used for several obvious reasons, and they certainly can’t be assessed by lay leftist activists (and not merely through their abstracts!). That’s how you’d measure the climate science consensus. There’s no other core method — you have to ask the relevant scientists directly. Such surveys are best implemented by non-leftists, people committed to rigor. Note that we’d still need a reason to care about this topic and any consensus around it… Zoom out Caring about a “consensus” on any topic is optional and we need a fuller epistemological framework to have an informed stance on the question of consensus and in what contexts we’d take it into consideration. Referring to an expert consensus is an authoritarian heuristic and we only need heuristics in emergencies or when substantive, rational methods aren’t available. Recent history is full of false scientific consensi, especially when driven by leftist ideology, for example that abolishing the use of test scores in college admissions would be fine, that sterilizing and mutilating trans-identified children is supported by quality evidence1, various claims about racism in policing, claims that COVID vaccines prevented infection and transmission, and that there was good evidence that masking in public reduced COVID spread (it’s not clear why these random empirical COVID positions became leftist dogma, though they fit the authoritarian nature of the left). Caring about climate change is also optional. By the somewhat abstract and computationally complex measure Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), the earth has warmed about 1.5 °C in 150 years, likely driven by human carbon emissions, at least in part. A moderate IPCC scenario might project another 1 °C of warming by 2100, an average of about 0.02 °F per year. You can care about that if you want, but there’s no way you or any other biped could notice it over the course of your life — even if you stayed in the same town for 70 years and it saw the same increase as GMST (moving would yield much larger changes up or down, destroying a “climate change” signal). The media can make you think you notice it, but that’s just the power of earth-on-fire imagery and propaganda. Being blasted with climate change propaganda is a profoundly novel way for humans to live, and it’s worth meditating on its effects. Warming is just (mild) change and we have no apparent reason to view the 19th-century baseline as optimal or to particularly care about a complex global average temperature (you live where you live), and cold is much deadlier to humans than warmth. Enter Social Psychologists Leftist activist and NYU social psychology professor Jay Van Bavel led a study that tried to trick participants into adopting a leftist ideological perspective on “climate change”. The researchers particularly wanted to spur activism for coercive left-wing policies like carbon taxes and even taxing meat and dairy (which would harm health). Research aimed at tricking participants to be more leftist is common in social psychology — leftists control the field and activism is an explicit goal of many researchers and organizations. How did the study approach this? It fed participants propaganda like this: “Did you know that 99% of expert climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming and climate change is happening, mainly because of human activity (for example, burning fossil fuels)? [Myers et al., Environmental Research Letters; Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters; Doran and Zimmerman, EOS]” Yes, they actually cited the insanely invalid Lynas study — the one that counted fingerprint solvent and steelmaking papers as quanta of climate science consensus. Van Bavel and colleagues couldn’t be troubled to carefully read these journal articles. They just assumed they were valid and true, which is a huge mistake to make about academic output, but of course they’re academics and are unlikely to approach journal articles with the necessary exogenous intelligence and rigor, especially those that advance their political ideology. They misled their participants by citing one false study (Lynas), one rigged study (Myers), and an old study that asked if human activity was a “significant” factor in warming, not whether warming was mainly due to human activity (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). And they didn’t cite any of the higher quality climate consensus research that gave lower estimates than these three cherry-picked papers. As I reported here, high quality studies by professional survey researchers had the consensus at 78-84%. Van Bavel and colleagues showed no rigor or real interest in the topic by not citing the much more valid Farnsworth and Lichter (2012), Bray and von Storch (2014), or Stenhouse, et al. (2014) and using their estimates instead of the 99%. Key to these numbers was asking if human activity was responsible for most or all of the observed warming. In that case, the results were 78-84%. If asked simply if human activity was a factor or a significant factor, the results are in the high-90s, as with Doran and Zimmerman. At this point it might not matter. In the decade since the 78-84% studies, the climate scientists who would say human activity is a factor but not the only or primary factor have probably been driven out of the field or retired, so it wouldn’t surprise me if a high-quality survey in 2026 resulted in a 95% or higher estimate. Note that Van Bavel purports to study “misinformation” and yet he misled his participants citing an insane study that treated fingerprint solvent and philosophy papers as quanta of climate science consensus. Like every academic “misinformation researcher”, he spews a remarkable volume of misinformation into his host civilization. I’ve addressed some of his other false claims here and social psychologist Nathaniel Bork checked my work here. Zoom In The Lynas team are activists at an NGO called Alliance for Science… Yes, sadly we’ve gotten used to leftists naming things the exact opposite of their true nature. Here’s what the “Alliance for Science” had to say about climate “misinformation”: "The second misinformation theme related to the claim that the ongoing climate emergency is ‘fake’ because warming so far has been “mild” and that “life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today’s”. They refer to “the ongoing climate emergency” as an inarguable descriptive fact. Whether 1.5 °C of warming in the last 150 years amounts to an emergency is a subjective judgment, an opinion on a matter of opinion. Leftist dogma is rife with this conversion of subjective appraisals on complex topics into inarguable descriptive facts, and the appraisals are often that something is an “emergency” or “crisis”. They don’t just convert neurotic opinions on matters of opinion into facts. They treat this dissent as “misinformation” and then try to censor it, using government, social media companies, etc. That this organization talks this way gives the lie to their mission being about “science”. This is ideology, not science. You can think climate change is an emergency or that it’s mild — that’s an opinion, an appraisal, and it isn’t a matter settled by science. The way different people even approach the question will vary, including the extent to which science is an input, and which science they refer to. Lynas also said “the debate about whether climate change is real is well and truly over and is now almost entirely relegated to the lunatic fringe”. This is a familiar formulation on the left — that “climate change is real”. Van Bavel also traffics in that phrase and seems to think that saying “climate change is real” says something important and makes the case for the whole leftist totalitarian policy package, from taxing energy to taxing or banning food that leftists have long targeted, especially meat. Climate change is real? Okay… Yes, I’m real, you’re real, komodo dragons are real, and climate change is real. Now what? The climate has always changed and always will. So what? Let’s tighten it up: I assume they mean that human-caused climate change is real. Sure, though that’s awkward wording and “climate change” is too broad and vague. Let’s fix it to: human activity has contributed to the recent warming of ≈ 1.5 °C since the 1800s. And let’s finish the thought by saying we’ll see more warming through 2100, maybe another 1.0 °C, and this will be partly or mostly driven by human activity. All good? Now what? Why would we care about warming? Well, we might care if 1) it affected us or humanity generally in significant, harmful ways, and 2) we could prevent these future harms, or reverse any harms we think are currently playing out. Point #1 alone unfolds into a complex, highly variable topic. I myself have no climate harms to refer to. That is, I don’t know of any harms to me or to anyone I know. Nor do I anticipate any. Leftists increasingly group all bad weather, storms, hurricanes, even wildfires as human-caused “climate change”, but that’s not scientifically rigorous and it’s straightforwardly false in many cases. Even if I wanted to do that, I wouldn’t be able to detect any impact on my life, say of 0.2 more extreme weather events per year where I live. I don’t know how to notice something like that, and the leftist lifestyle of consuming daily climate change propaganda that attributes so many random climate phenomena to an “ongoing climate emergency” is deeply irrational, unscientific, and unhealthy. For Point #2, we’d need to be confident that there’s something we could do to prevent or reverse harmful climate change. I’m not sure why we’d believe that. Note that this proposition is far beyond the core proposition for which there is a documented 78-84% consensus — that human activity is the main driver of the observed warming. Assuming you care about a consensus of academics working in the relevant fields, I’m not aware of any published consensus surveys on questions like whether we could prevent another 1 °C of warming with specific policies or what have you. The science of mitigation is extremely complex and we need a serious epistemic framework capable of evaluating climate science and its long-term projections and modeling. We don’t have that framework. That is, we don’t have any validated way of assessing climate science at that level of rigor. We might have climate scientists claiming that we can dial back warming with such and such reduction of carbon emissions, but we have no way of evaluating such claims. As a society, we’re not yet operating at that level of rigor and intelligence, and climate science itself might not be operating at the needed level of rigor to satisfy such an epistemic framework. Now, if we had the necessary exogenous framework and tools, it wouldn’t logically imply support for the totalitarian policies of the left. No one has to support anything. You might not think it’s appropriate or ethical to ban or tax meat in order to cut a 1 °C increase in GMST to a 0.5 °C increase, for example. Or to make energy more expensive for the same purpose. Energy is critical to life. You might have all sorts of values, principles, and concerns that trump GMST, sea levels, or storm counts. That’s your prerogative as a sentient being. No one is obligated to be a climate-focused utilitarian/totalitarian. You might not think that optimizing the climate of 2100 is a valid government function, or that the premise that a 1-2 degree cooler world is in fact optimal is unfounded, or that even the idea of an optimal GMST is invalid. You might also be aware that climate propaganda has been full of false and inherently implausible scenarios like the recently retracted RCP8.5, which many legacy/leftist media outlets presented as serious science without disclosing its absurd assumptions and methodology. Leftists aren’t cognizant of the myriad valid reasons why someone might not care about climate change or support their coercive policy agenda. Their way of being on this issue consists of a handful of simple formulations like “climate change is a real” and “climate emergency”, with an eagerness to believe any and all claims that climate change is causing {insert harm}. Nothing is rejected and no claims of harm are seriously examined. Legacy media routinely makes false claims about climate science, from promoting or mischaracterizing junk like RCP8.5 and the Lynas 99.9 percent consensus study, to calling people who approach the issue with rigor “climate deniers”. I’ve never seen anything like the consensus studies by Cook (2012) and Lynas (2021) — measuring consensus by having conflicted political activists read the abstracts of irrelevant journal articles from an amateur keyword search, followed by deranged arithmetic? Ours was supposed to be a scientific civilization, and this is tantamount to pulling out a Ouija board and crystals. This whole topic is begging for a massive epistemic and scientific upgrade. Read more: wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/14/cli…

The Legacy Media is the enemy of the people.

@FFT1776 Zero

Zero

@Sionainnagins A good choice. Plus some fanboi will likely pay you top dollar for your crapple cast-off.

🚨 Phone Update!!!❣️😂 20+ years Android loyalist here (Motorola Razr 2024 is my everyday beast). Tried the iPhone 17 Pro Max for 4 days… back to my Razr today. Couldn’t take it. Pros: Good battery & cameras. That’s about it. The rest? Clunky as hell. Navigation felt completely backwards. Word & Excel apps were clumsy with extra steps... Android is way smoother for real work. Biggest issue: I’m hearing impaired and wear hearing aids, except at home... I don’t wear aids at home. Couldn’t hear notifications or even the loudest ringtones. Missed calls and alerts constantly. Plus, that glass screen makes me nervous, feels fragile even in a case. My Razr? I can toss it around no worries. Google Images transfer was clunky too; stuff just didn’t flow right and felt impossible to find. Back home with Android where everything just works for me. Never again. On the plus side... I have an Apple iPhone Pro Max for sale... Cheap!!😂

@AntiLeftMemes Yes.

Seattle’s Communist mayor Katie Wilson wishes to use the government to force grocery stores to stay open and work against their will in Seattle. "We cannot allow big grocery chains to close stores at will!” Is she a Tyrant or Retard?

@BasedMikeLee Low IQ audience.

You walk into a room and see this. What’s your first thought?

@spencerpratt The left has to cheat to win. And they WILL cheat to win. If anything, the voting age should be raised. I know it's an unpopular view, but the weight of the decisions made on a ballot are above the mental development of most younger people. I said what I said.

Communists need children to vote because you have to be mentally under-developed to buy the bullshit socialists try to sell you. They’re like the student body president promising no homework and free soda in the drinking fountains.

@OwenGregorian Companies will toss you in the bin without a second thought. "It's not personal, it's business." And then they wonder why there's no loyalty amongst employees.

Welcome to the Era of the Forever Layoff | Tim Paradis, Business Insider Microsoft's latest round of layoffs has become a familiar corporate ritual. Last week, the software giant said it would eliminate about 4,800 jobs, marking another workforce reduction, as it remains profitable and invests heavily in AI. Similar layoffs, from Amazon to Meta, have rippled across tech over the past several years, while many of those same companies amass big AI budgets. In May, Cloudflare eliminated more than 20% of its workforce. CEO Matthew Prince, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed following the layoffs, said the firm hadn't seen another US public company cut as deeply while growing by more than 30%. "Yet what we did is likely going to become the norm over the next year," Prince said. It appears other companies got the memo. In May, Cisco reported record revenue for its fiscal third quarter and said it would cut nearly 5% of its workforce. In announcing the reductions, CEO Chuck Robbins said the firms that will win in the AI era are those with the discipline to "continuously shift investment" toward areas with the greatest long-term potential. Rather than waiting for certainty, many firms are making waves of job cuts as they figure out how AI will reshape their businesses. For employees, looming cutbacks are becoming less a recession-era concern and more a regular feature of working in tech. 'Continuous tuning' Companies are talking about cuts more often, especially in the name of technological advancement. Mentions of layoffs alongside AI on corporate conference calls have climbed from fewer than five per quarter in 2022, when ChatGPT launched, to more than 100 per quarter this year, according to an AlphaSense analysis of calls across industries. Microsoft said its latest cuts aren't related to AI. Amazon has likewise said AI hasn't been the reason for the vast majority of its cuts over the past two years. A Meta spokesperson referred to a statement the company issued about its May layoffs, in which it said changes varied by team and included moving thousands of workers to other priorities. Some firms in the information sector — which includes tech and media — are cutting back after high levels of pandemic-era hiring. And, because AI can help automate some work, a certain amount of restructuring can help companies operate more efficiently. Those savings can, in turn, go toward costly AI investments. While some firms have made deep cuts as they try to chart a path forward, companies aren't likely to announce sweeping layoffs unless they face an obstacle such as serious financial trouble, said Joseph Fuller, a Harvard Business School professor. Overall, Fuller expects many companies to make smaller, recurring adjustments — what he calls "continuous tuning." One reason, he said, is that companies have spent roughly the last quarter-century relentlessly cutting costs, leaving relatively little fat left to trim. Another is uncertainty. Companies don't yet know how AI will play out, and for all the talk of companies mustering agents to take on loads of employees' work, not much has changed, he said, because many tools are still in development. At the same time, CEOs' worries about rivals are also feeding a need to "constantly reevaluate," Fuller said. "If they keep just doing incremental things, and they've got a key competitor that goes all-in, they can wake up one morning and be down 21-nothing before kickoff," he said. That competitive pressure is pushing executives to make workforce decisions. "This uncertainty, I think, will tend to skew to layoffs," Fuller said. Finding rare AI talent In many cases, the layoffs aren't because employers are entirely replacing workers with AI, said Carrol Chang, CEO of Andela, which connects AI engineering talent to companies. Instead, she said, many boards are increasingly pressuring management teams to demonstrate AI-driven productivity gains without dramatically increasing spending on, for example, tokens. Yet few big firms have reached the point where AI allows them to operate with a substantially smaller workforce, she said. Instead of assuming AI can immediately replace workers, Chang said companies would often be better served by helping existing employees learn how to use the technology effectively. In part, she said, that's because it's hard for companies to hire the talent they want. "Truly AI native and AI-fluent workers are incredibly scarce, and when you can find them, they're incredibly expensive," she said. Regardless of the cause, workers are feeling the impact of looming pink slips. After leaks prompted Meta to announce in April that it would lay off workers about a month later, one worker described the interim period as "28 days of hell." Moyan Chen, a data scientist who was laid off from Meta as part of its May cuts, previously told Business Insider that when the layoff she'd been fretting over finally came, "It was more like relief than pain." The cost of perpetual cuts Smaller teams can reduce inefficiencies and layers of middle management. However, some companies are realizing they've gone too far and have had to rehire for roles they eliminated, hoping AI could do the work. Repeatedly laying off workers and hiring replacements can be an expensive cycle, given the costs of severance, recruiting, training, and extra contractors, said Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. If recurring layoffs remain a management strategy rather than a recession tactic, companies could be underestimating what they're giving up, he said. Pfeffer said repeated rounds of layoffs create lasting uncertainty inside organizations, encouraging top performers to leave while weakening the relationships and institutional knowledge that make companies effective. When a company rehires people, he said, "the coordination and communication is not going to be what it was if you had worked together for a while." Harvard's Fuller said that as AI takes on more work, companies will need more, not fewer, people with a strong contextual understanding of company processes, markets, competitors, customers, suppliers, and industry regulations. "You need to keep people who know what they're talking about," he said. businessinsider.com/why-tech-compa…

@janninereid1 Have I? No. Will I? No. Why? Because I'm not an idiot.

Perfect examples of "GO WOKE, GO BROKE!" Have you...or WILL you see any of these movies?

@MemoryLaneTime I remember these. "Turn down that road, let's see where it goes."

Sunday drives were just drives. No destination, no screen, no rush. Just the family and the road

@JackPosobiec Colour me shocked.

Oh

@ThatCheerMomOfX Honestly, today I'm looking for the "Opt Out" button.

My coffee and I are currently discussing whether we even want to participate in today.

@Hunter_Eagleman The last time the Democrat elite didn't monkey with their primary system was when Obama won his first term. They were all set to run Hillary when Barry surprised them. Ever since, they've stacked the deck in favor of the candidate they choose.

Democrats are all upset about Lindsay Graham’s sister being appointed to finish the Senator’s term. Meanwhile, the same Democrats had zero issue when party elites quickly “installed” Kamala Harris in 2024 with no primary process. 🤔

@Hunter_Eagleman That's because Leslie is an imbecile.

Leslie here calling criminals “innocent people?!” 🥴

@SaltyGoat17 I knew this dolt had Alzheimer's or dementia during the campaign, such as it was. I know the signs, and it was obvious he was having issues. NO WAY did this clown win the election, and NO WAY was he mentally engaged in any legislation. His whole term should be invalidated.

If you NEVER saw a problem here... We don't GIVE AF about your opinion on Trump You've already proved you have ZERO critical thinking skills

Yes they really are that dumb !