Ah, yeah but not at the lower levels like this soldier.

I feel certain that any allegiance he expressed was to protect the well being of his family, rather than a genuine position.

Collecting passports from people away from their country is a huge “no, you don’t” thing.

Not really, in many cases it’s a necessity.

That’s not to say that giving your passport to your employer for safe keeping is a good idea.

Not really.

That particular comment doesn’t really enter into the “why” of Russia’s behavior, it’s just talking about the difficulties of repairing these cables in war-like conditions.

Those conditions don’t really exist presently. Russia is not “at war” with Finland and some sneaky cable cutting is not the same game as sinking merchant / civilian ships. I also feel certain that Finland would be happy to underwrite the risk to the repair company, and provide naval support while the repair was conducted.

Most countries just regulate the content of baby formula.

The french company thought the project was an upfront full payout, but the state had it set up as a piecemeal payment system based on hitting specific objectives.

I pretty much just don’t believe you.

“How & when will we get paid” is a core component of tenders even for contracts worth a few thousand dollars. I’m incredulous that a contract worth many millions could be awarded without anyone realising that payments were provided in stages.

What you’re describing sounds much more like a disagreement over a variation. Whatever aspect of the project was going to cost more than anticipated so the contract needs to be varied. Service acquirer refuses to vary, contractor refuses to absorb the cost.

Australian here. Torrenting with no vpn is a terrible idea. Right now today there may not be any litigation of end users, but if you think about whether there will be at some point over the next several years? The odds are pretty good, and you’d be the low-hanging fruit.

Your risks diminish dramatically with a vpn.

It’s like you didn’t read my comment.

If I say that receiving 2 olives on my side salad instead of 1 is “a premium experience”, it’s not possible to prove that assertion false but it makes the word premium completely meaningless in any practical way.

My point is, I’m not going to argue with you about your definition of premium.

Semantics.

Because they’re not premium features they’re just somewhat less shit.

Premium would be hookers and blow.

He has money.

People want money.

Anyone who says preserving the status quo

This is an epic straw man. Usually I avoid calling out straw man arguments because you can frame almost any assertion as a straw man and ultimately it doesn’t further discussion. In this case though, you started it.

If you’re into logical fallacies, I will say that your argument is a false dichotomy. Between “societal collapse” and “status quo” there’s an obvious third option: “try to fix all the broken things”, which is what most people are trying to do. Both societal collapse and status quo are absurd propositions that no reasonable person would subscribe to.

You haven’t annoyed me. I’m sorry if my manner offends you.

No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate that human extinction is likely.

I didn’t say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you’re just strawmanning.

Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn’t really understand what societal collapse entails.

I also didn’t suggest that capitalism will save us - that’s another straw man.

Your metaphor is disingenuous.

This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it’s inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that’s a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.

I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.

“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.

The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.

This is where it says that:

Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.

So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.

Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.

It’s impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who’s just making stuff up and claiming that it’s a plausible assertion.

You’re not being realistic, you’re being dramatic.

Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.

Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.

Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.

Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.

Oh sweetheart.

Did you google “human extinction science” and link the first result without reading it?

The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.

It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.

What a silly thing to say.

You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?

Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.

Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.

Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.

Is anyone actually claiming that we’re on a path to extinction? That’s hyperbole.

This type of thinking is not constructive in any way.