ownlife

There's no "getting elections right"; these models just estimate probability. They gave Trump a 29% change in 2016 -- that's almost 1 in 3!

A better way to assess accuracy would be to bin predictions (0-10% chance, 10-20% chance, etc.) and see if the observed frequency aligns with the predictions.

How can we jump to that conclusion? Maybe they were only willing to interfere in that process in extreme cases.

Many things are the truth, so it's really a question of framing. Another truth: humans have done reversible and irreversible damage to their natural environment; they can collectively reverse some of the damage and prevent further reversible and irreversible damage.

To focus on only irreversible damage -- especially as David Attenborough, somebody who over the better half of a century has earned massive respect and trust from people all over the world -- would be wildly irresponsible.

Why shouldn't infinite growth be possible?

You want to the documentary to end with David Attenborough saying that it is too late to revert the destruction of natural habitat?

Arguably, it devalues this list of books because it calls into question its credibility and its author's seriousness.

Kettle? Cattle?

> Why is that? It's a fair question.

I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.