gyaniv

I don't think proper research can be done based on answers from only 4 interviewees. I think I know some people who belong to this group (although it's hard to tell seeing as I don't point blank ask them), and while they do fly quite often, they basically never fly private, which would instantly cut the amount of emissions mentioned in the article.

In addition, carbon taxes, and environmental taxes will specifically target this group as their main source of carbon emission, is transportation.

I don't think the 'space race' notion can really apply here, since at least in some of the plans for their mission, they planned on doing it in a joint effort with several other space agencies (including the Russian).

I agree that it really does seem like at least the official objective of the current administration (mostly the white house) only care about showing the world/the country/someone else that they're the best, that they have done everything, etc, etc, etc. Just like I think it's clear why they wanted to land on the moon specifically until 2024.

I would like to believe that at least for (most of) the people actually working in NASA, they view their work in a more focused way (science, global cooperation and improvements), and it can be seen by the projects that for example are currently being researched by the NASA astronauts in the ISS.

The problem is that since there's always a switch between Republican and Democrats, each president has a different perspective on the overall NASA mission (plus each one wants to leave a big mark), so they keep changing.

I think what the people actually working there try to do (as it can be seen here) is find a way to fit what they have already done, with what the new mission statement is, so that they won't have to scrap everything they have done, only the limited amount. That's good is some senses (less wasted work), but the result is then usually not the most fitting solution.

Yes, Google isn't untrustworthy and doesn't care about the users privacy, we knew that, but the general public that isn't as aware (at this point it's hard to be completely unaware) also doesn't read this private company blog, so it doesn't really help much (except advertise the company).

We should be thinking of ways to improve the situation for everyone (not saying I have the solution), but personally (and unfortunately) I don't think this would have any impact.

You seem to forget that a lot of the refugees are coming from the sea (by boat), so that adds those that border with the Mediterranean, including Greece, Italy, and oh yeah, France.

I have to say I'm not I would call someone that creates something that doesn't work (and will never work) and inventor.

If I just jump from a building and throw a bottle on the way down, saying that the bottle will 'throw me back up because physics', and then I die (obviously), I'm not an inventor, I'm just an idiot.

I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue (although I know it currently is) because the price we (not even our children) will pay because of climate change would be much higher (in pure economic costs, before we start talking about more moral and environmental costs like animal extinction).

But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow, or next year (and definitely more then their potential future descendants).

I don't see the problem with that, because it would require me to convince you to vote for Y although you want X.

And in addition, seeing as this is an anonymous (I'm assuming) vote, then I could lie to you and vote my way (to get more votes for Y), but then if everyone will do it, the colluding wouldn't work, so we need to be able to trust each other and work together, which is exactly what we in the end, for people to work together and not against each other.

I have had so many discussions with people about finding better ways to vote and hold elections.

It's nice to hear when there's a new approach that is actually being used, even if it was only in a small community, although I would be interested in seeing something like this used in large scales elections.

> This is why I'm ashamed to be an American.

Then don't be. No one is forcing you. Just leave.

Yes, terrible things were done in the founding of America, but terrible things happened all over the world throughout history (including between warring native tribes). But what we need to take from this isn't that our ancestors were horrible human beings, but that they did wrong things and more importantly, we need to strive to learn from it, not repeat their mistakes and generally be better people.

> the current property "owners" are criminal trespassers in my view.

Then pretty much every single American is a trespassers because basically the entire United States (or North America in general) was settled by native American before the Europeans "discovered" it, and in most cases, they didn't sell them their land.

That's the mentioned exercise.

Whenever they want to actually damage a company they just don't fine them. They pass a new bill, create new regulations, or take action against individuals in the company in order to "send a message" without hurting the business as a whole, to avoid scaring off other companies. which is exactly what a serious fine would do, as it should, and as everyone (but the investors) want.