With an increased pressure to make upcoming elections be on climate politics I found this thread instructive, after the failure of making the elections in Australia about climate (links added by me):
The strategy of sowing fear, speaking of disaster and in particular recruiting children is risky. IMO it does not work. It’s not a controlled sense of urgency, it’s a panic. As father and uncle, I resent my children and nieces/nephews saying ‘It’s up to us’.
So to win an election on climate change try this:
1/ Make it about climate change. Not about your political party. Focus, make it apolitical. Move it to the centre. Make the opponents look like extremists if they will not join you there.
2/ Include nuclear technologies, treated as solutions not political weapons. Show everyone you are serious. Prove that it’s about climate change, not political identity.
3/ Reach out to the communities who stand to lose. Don’t pretend they don’t exist. Listen to them. Make them a priority. They are the votes you need. Who knows, nuclear technologies might help there?
4/ Don’t pretend VRE [like wind and solar power] is going to do it all. This is a jetpack promise and no one believes it anymore
5/ Don’t frighten children. Inspire them. Remember that idea? Making children believe in a brighter future?
6/ Set ambitious, aspirational long-term goals with tough, detailed, costed policies for your term of government – policies about transitioning an entire fossil fuel based economy. That’s going to take time – treat it with the respect it deserves.
I especially detest taking children hostage for political gain, and climate panic will bring nothing but misery and suffering.
These issues are solvable. Wind and solar (VRE) will not be sufficient.
By the way, do you know the best way to stop politicians lying to you? It is to stop rewarding them when they do.
From NordVPN, “20 bad Internet behaviors – and how to fix them” is worth a read. I like how NordVPN continues to communicate.
And I also like this meme:
(from this picture)
It appears that my hopes will come true: EASA is independently reviewing the revised designs for Boeing 737 MAX before allowing it to fly again in Europe.
Obviously, as previously told, having EASA base their certification on FAA having allowed Boeing to basically self-certify their upgrade to the 737 was a bad idea. I just wonder if EASA need to review other certifications that may have suffered from the same.
I am not surprised that it looks like low fertility follows after low child mortality. In this animation, most countries move left (low risk of child dying) before moving down (fewer children per woman):
This has let to this change in demographics:
Or, in other words, we don’t get more children, they stop dying. Almost all children will grow up to be productive adults. Nearing 2100 the number of children is expected to fall and previous estimates that the global population will max out at 11 billion people are now considered too high. We might end up with a global population of 9 billion people, even though it tripled in the 70 years since 1950 from 2.5 billion to 7.5 billion.
TIL about the most fraudulent election in history, the 1927 Liberian general election. The winning party got 243,000 votes, out of 15,000 registered voters.
Udgivet i Other
I have in some ways a pretty broad stream of news coming to me online; on the other hand, I realise it’s also pretty specific at times. But I keep seeing a pattern: Sometimes a story appears, I read about it and practically forget about it. It was fun, but not important.
The story fell through the cracks and few others in my field of work or in national news noticed it.
Then, months or years later, the story is found again and is retold, reintroduced, as if it was the hottest thing. Like 17 months later people at my work started talking about something that was old news.
It’s like, if something isn’t noticed right away, it temporarily disappears beneath the waves of other stories, but the news cycle may bring it back up later.
Oh, and about that Tripadvisor story I linked to – there’s another story I haven’t seen or heard mentioned but Tripadvisor appears to have finally addressed that. And I think that’s a good start.
I switched VPN provider to NordVPN and they are a much more communicative company than my previous VPN provider. That’s probably good.
They have published a nice article with the best browsers for privacy and security. Interesting read.
On my own computer and on my phone, I use Firefox (and Firefox Focus).
NordVPN and a lot of other VPN providers are engaged in a lot of dubious marketing tactics. This lowers my trust in them. They are also the victims of downright dishonest marketing tactics, such as having fake reviews on Trustpilot lowering their scores.
But the service works.
The English word “mundane” and the Danish word “mondæn” comes from the Old French mondain, from Late Latin mundanus, from mundus (“world”). The words are pronounced in a similar way.
The English word means unremarkable, worldly as opposed to heavenly or spiritually, ordinary and tedious.
The Danish word means luxury and upper class.
Looking at other languages doesn’t exactly help.
This has confused me endlessly, but I think the Danish view of the worldly could explain the differences.
Udgivet i Other
Last year I linked to a good political compass, which I found quite useful.
We have our upcoming national election in Denmark, and as usual I take one of the which-candidate-do-you-agree-with online tests. I usually use Altinget’s.
I only do it for fun, because I have never voted according to the tests.
The problem of most political compasses or tests like those that spring up near elections, is that the questions and answers are impossible to compare. The questions are all framed as relative and current, which means that you answer according to your knowledge of what reality is.
First question is, should the price of cigarettes be raised? I don’t know, what does a pack of cigarettes cost today? What would a higher price mean?
Second question is, should private hospitals perform a higher number of treatments for the health service? How many do they perform today? Are they more efficient or better or the opposites?
And so on.
Then your answer to these impossible questions are compared against candidates, who have answered based on their knowledge.
It reminds me of when the school strikes a number of years ago. An opinion poll asked if the pay to school teacher should be raised. Overwhelming support. It also asked what the pay should be and the majority was for a lower pay than they already received.
Well, I wasn’t alone in stating that more than a year ago but still some pretend to be surprised.
In short a new law in Denmark seek to pinpoint children in social risk by linking existing data sources. Laudable, but as I pointed out:
Negative consequences of data linking will be disproportionally larger for the poorest people.
Would this level of surveillance be accepted if the middle class was at risk? And if that level of surveillance is necessary to protect children, why are only the poorest children being subjected to it?