Quark Blast's page

Quark Blast wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):

[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess.

OK, I'll call that bluff.

thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education.

Okay, so you're wrong and governments can do things well. Based on your own attempted counter example. Good.

Cool! I'll count that as a successfully called bluff then.

Quark Blast wrote:

Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):

[dice=Will Save]d20+8No, because I wasn't interested in badgering you yet again on the point you were deflecting from - your ridiculous claim that Finland's schools aren't government because the middle schools have long recess.

OK, I'll call that bluff.

thejeff is 100% right about Finland's primary education.

Now, I repeat:

If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.

Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?

Now involve multiple national governments (like 100 to 200).

How do you think that^ will turn out?

Based on what facts?

Remind me again what the cost of the Green New Deal is going to be over the next 20 years? The only thing I keep finding is the Ernst "$93 Trillion" story that I'm pretty sure isn't an exact amount.

I was going with not even 10% of that amount as a floor just to make my point. Even with that fractional proportion I hold my argument to be unassailable given the lack of substantive engagement (I call it the Snark-meter. The more snark, the better my argument must be.).

In this country, I'm going to guess, we'll aim for something like the $93 trillion initially but that will get derailed within a few years and who knows what we'll end up with. A mess of course! But how much $ is involved when it's all over is impossible to predict. Probably less than $93 in today's dollars though.

Quark Blast wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

QB...

But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.

So take up the very reasonable challenge and name a federal level program on the scale of the 'green new deal' that's turned out well. That hasn't wasted $95M for every $100M spent.

In fact I'll lower the bar to just 50% waste.

I'm not an American so I'm certainly not going to try and name YOUR federal programs that aren't a waste. But I'd imagine the building of the highway systems, the defending of America in WW2, the building of Hoover Dam would all count.

For Canada, I'll just refer back to my list and cite Public Health Care and a Federal Elections System.

But I now remember how foolish it is to argue with you (even or especially when I partly or largely agree with you) and will again try hard to stop wasting my time with you.

Good example with Hoover Dam. However to make it comparable to the 'green new deal' proposals we'd need to build around 200 Hoover Dams every year for the next two to three decades.

OR

About five to ten, complete from scratch, Federal Highway Systems.

OR

Prosecute the Second World War six or seven times over.

All the while maintaining current spending for all the other things our government does.

Now consider again my question posed to thejeff, a question he deflected with a snarky "dice roll" (because answering is too difficult for the corner he's painted himself into):

If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.

Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?

Now involve multiple national governments (like 100 to 200).

How do you think that^ will turn out?

Based on what facts?

.

You see now perhaps why I hold out some small hope for stable nuclear fusion at scale. As well as effective CC&S at scale. We'll need these to mitigate the failures of the past 20 years as well as the failures upcoming over the next 20 years.

At least we all agree my informed opinions are worthy of discussion on a public forum.
:D

Quark Blast wrote:

Or an Eberron artificer. The ones that don't entertain that is.

Nothing beats a halfling barbarian riding a dinosaur slinging boomerangs tho. Just say'n.

I didn't care for the halfling Dino Riders.

You are in a LARGE peer group with that opinion!

:D

I like poking my head in here from time to time to see if QB is still neck-deep in"intellectual" denialism and it seems like nothing has changed in the last five years.

He's still the same dude who compared a federally funded government healthcare system to prehistoric shaman burning herbs to cure unknown diseases and chase out spirits. It makes sense that they're still desperate to engage in conversations like those being had here because the rest of you folks who are bothering to engage with him are wich is only feeding his ego by treating him as an equal instead of a degenerate like he is who spouts nonsense debunked false narratives that even Joe Rogan would wince at.

Just my 2c though. Carry on.

You put down shaman rituals and my posts get flagged?

Interesting....

QB...

But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.

So take up the very reasonable challenge and name a federal level program on the scale of the 'green new deal' that's turned out well. That hasn't wasted $95M for every $100M spent.

In fact I'll lower the bar to just 50% waste.

Then realize, according to the IPCC report, we need to be seeing single-digit waste on a global scale for decades straight.

You think that will happen?

The other option is to argue that the IPCC report is #### and so too are the scale/expense of any 'green new deal' plan put forth in good (if misguided) faith.

WTF are you talking about?

What does any of it have to do with Finland's schools being regulated by the government?

And you flag my posts for flaunting forum rules.

Or, you can be constructive and answer the substantive portion of that post which triggered you.

To repeat:

If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.

Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?

Now involve multiple national governments.

How do you think that^ will turn out?

Based on what facts?

Quark Blast wrote:

And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?

And that happens because all the non-government middle schools independently decided a half day of recess was a good idea or because the government structured the middle school day that way?

Just because you like what the government did in this case, doesn't mean the government didn't do it.

And you posted on this forum in strict adherence to FCC rules.

So the #### what?

Try posting what you like in countries not to be named - UDHR be damned. You can bet your family jewels that if the freedom we're enjoying here wasn't stated plainly in our founding document that our opinions would be as regulated as a few billion others' around the world.

If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.

Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?

Now involve multiple national governments.

How do you think that^ will turn out?

Based on what facts?

Wow! CB has a clone... or pupsocket.
:D

"The fact that coal will disappear on its own does not mean that we can not or should not excelerate the process."

If you don't mind doubling your utility rates and increasing your taxes, go right ahead. Heck, move to California now to get a foretaste of what it'll be like everywhere if the USA goes for a 'green new deal'.

They did this in Germany and it's sucking hard for the little guy. Aloys Wobben has made billions ######## #### Euro-citizens.

And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?

As for the other points... not worth responding to that spew of hyperbole and distraction.

Not that we haven't already decided this but, dude!, you need a different GM and a different friend.

Or an Eberron artificer. The ones that don't entertain that is.

Nothing beats a halfling barbarian riding a dinosaur slinging boomerangs tho. Just say'n.

Tolkien did hate allegory, but he liked applicability. Allegory is a heavy-handed 1-to-1 relationship, usually like hitting the reader over the head with the connection. Applicability is more of a soft 1-to-Many relationship, where the reader can draw parallels to multiple things. The One Ring offers power and temptation, but that can manifest in many myriad ways.

Like the temptation to find layered allegory where there is in fact none.

:D

This is the least chatty AI I've ever encountered. C'mon high G , what gives?

Quark Blast wrote:

CB wrote:

Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years.

Exactly my point!

Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result?

A: The results would NOT be "the same".

Without efforts to accelerate the transition, oil and natural gas will hang on for a few decades. Even the retirement of coal could be further accelerated.

B: Most versions of a 'green new deal' I have seen would result in less money being spent overall.

Quark Blast wrote:

Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?

Yes.

Directly contradicting your earlier statement, 'Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?'

Clearly I made a point to further conversation and true to form you weaponize it.

My concession to the lack of sensibleness in government programs is that they are best when the government portion is least. Cf. Education in Finland.

Quark Blast wrote:

Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time.

So... do nothing and the coronavirus will just 'magically go away' on its own. Global warming will solve itself. The national highway system both sprung into existence on its own and is now self-repairing.

I prefer the way you put it:

Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years.

No. Doing nothing does NOT get the same result. Doing nothing gets... nothing.

Contradict yourself as you like.

I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. ...

I have only a fraction of your gaming experience but I can only think of one player who had WoW expectations from a TTRPG. He attended a session zero and then one game and was out. People self-select pretty strongly and with tons of options on either side we won't see much crossover.

Goth Guru wrote:

This is another case of blind men describing an elephant. Both your views are true in different narrow views. The middle ground is to work on making solar cells cheaper, shut down some, but not all, coal powered plants, and building more and better wind turbines.

Golden mean is a fallacy. Not a goal

According to the diversity/inclusion instruction I've had, that's not true. All voices are equally important.

Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years.

Exactly my point!

Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result?

Glad you agree.
:D

Additionally, there may be some confusion by others using "sensible" in an equivocal manner.

Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?
Yes.

Do governments engage sensibly in long-term projects?
Sometimes yes. Usually by accident. But otherwise almost never.

Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time.

Ah, the third way it is then. Not surprised.

Remember, I'm autistic, that means I speak more directly and logically than most.

While I have no basis to dispute your proclaimed diagnosis, nor do I think it's useful to consider how directly (or not) that you speak, however I can assure you, on these forums at least, your communication is not more logical than most.

Now you're just walking away from your response and pretending you're not. And being insulting in the process.

Now you understand the force of my argument and rather than admit you're wrong you decide to deflect with being "hurt" over my standard use of sarcasm.

You could admit that or you could buck up and give an example of a sensible long-term government project.

Your choice - the hard way or the impossible way - makes no difference to me.

I'll grant that the ideas are sensible.

I'll grant that, in the abstract, having government involved long-term in these is sensible.

When does government ever do anything long-term and sensible?

The green new deal will be cronyism and cash grab. It'll be a nickel of worth for a dollar spent. As such it'll make no net difference to the average global temperature in the year 2100. Unless it gets overbuilt by a factor of 10 or more. Then it'll make a difference but won't be worth the intermediate cost.

I should stick to posting in this thread. By comparison I look way less "spunky" than usual.
:D

Quark Blast wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments?

That is the point!

Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.

Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.

Care to try again?

Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D

The first 3 things CB listed were non-country specific things established by governments across the world. You jumped in to compare "our" versions to better ones - also done by governments as if that proved governments couldn't do anything good. Which makes no sense at all.

No coffee yet?

Interesting you should put it that way. CBs claim was that these were examples of sensible long-term policies. Long-term, most of these have proven to be executed in the boondoggle sort of way. Half#### at least.

The one big exception I listed was also government light. Government blows #### up well but that's not generally a policy or something they do individually long-term.

Those are mixes, a type unto themselves, just like how movies have music but are not a musical style.

I encourage folks to try and change my mind, but that requires logic. Jyst pointing at things and going "See! You're wrong" is not a valid tactic, especially if it is all stuff I've seen before and already have fit answer for (at leadt, an answer fit enough for me, though I may not always have words to express it to others well).

M'kay... one more time then.

The style for music in movies is formally known as a score or colloquially as a soundtrack.

Consider yourself schooled. Again.
:D

And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments?

That is the point!

Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.

Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.

Care to try again?

Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D

Quark Blast wrote:

Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?

Have you heard of this thing called, 'the Internet'?

Compulsory education?
National highway systems?
Power grids?
Endangered Species Act?
Montreal Protocol?
LRTAP?

I could go on... hundreds of examples.

I would provide links but don't want to insult as that's the adult thing to do in this situation. That being said...

Our education pales in comparison to the very non-compulsory nature of Finland's education and their students rock compared to ours.

Our national highway system has more failing infrastructure than all of Europe's in any condition.

Power grid? Same.

ESA? Well we are in the midst of the 6th major global extinction in Earth history. So there's that.

The Montreal Protocol seems to be working but that could be because the chemical companies were about to get sued into oblivion.

LRTAP... Right now. Right now, more people (proportionally and of course absolutely) are sucking polluted air than at any time in human history.

Hundreds more examples huh?

Okay, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself I'm game.
:D

Quark Blast wrote:

The average global temp won't vary appreciably no matter what we do these next 20 years.

This is, of course, completely false.

What we do over the next 20 years will very likely determine what the temperature increase over pre-industrial by 2100 will be... it could be anything between +1.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will clean up our power use fast enough to achieve that) and +2.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will continue to pollute enough to get...

Earlier...

Quark Blast wrote:

You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there.

I've been describing the current scenario and trends. I haven't said a word about what an 'end game' 20+ years from now would be like.

Make up your mind would you?

...What about Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Cool World, or Monkeybone? Those are movies WITH animation in them. Are they animation?...

Boom!x2

Then there's music videos like Take On Me, my mom's fav song (I think). Is that animation or film?

Don't reply to this. You've already dug yourself a grave and I'd hate to see it collapse on you before your time.
:D

... I think +2°C is within reach if governments just adopt sensible long term policies within the next five years.

I cried tears of mirth at that.

Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?

Action, not mere talk. Governments talk a good talk all the ###### time. But long term sensible action? LOL

Stuff... lots of detailed stuff...

#### ####! Remind me never to argue with you. And I like to argue.

:D

Mad respect dude!

Quark Blast wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.

Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer

Yeah, reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be a popular thing around here.

Not my problem though.
:D

Dude, not productive, not cool, and not making your point either.

If NO one else can read? Maybe you can't write.

Well, my other option was to copy-n-paste my prior post. Not sure how that's any more productive/cool. Reread your "whatever you think is an answer..." bit from my perspective and see how "not cool" your own contributions are.

Say what, I'll compromise and post a link to my post that you can't comprehend and you can reread it and be specific about what you would like me to clarify. Deal?
:D

My point is, and I've said so expressly a number of times on this thread including the previous page, is that we can push a 'green new deal' or not as far as the year 2100 is concerned. The average global temp won't vary appreciably no matter what we do these next 20 years.

That is, for the year 2040 we can #### the economy or not, depending on how hard the push is (how much $ we waste now). For those of us who hope to be alive in 2040, pushing hard is apt screw us financially at a time in our life that ###### us the most.

For the year 2100, average global temp is going to be at least +2.5°C over pre-industrial. I doubt if our current wrangling over the best policy will move the measurement more than +-0.05°C.

The easy path to a carbon neutral 2050 passed us by around the year 1999. We are on the hard road now and our only choice is to #### ourselves in the short term or not. I prefer not.

Laugh while you can monkey boy*.
:D

IMDB only has so many bins to categorize movies and TV shows, and they don't have a bin that combines any other category with "Animation". So....

Read about the movie. The details. And you will see the film is literally animation 'painted' over film . Hence your "objective" example isn't.

Normally I wouldn't hold someone's hand through such a trivial Internet search but I feel really good about leading you to the realization that you were LYFAO at your own self-imposed ignorance. Good job!
:D

* My uncle's fav movie quote.

Quark Blast wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Style is a bit like genre, there are subjective elements and objective elements. You might quibble over whether a film is a romcom or not, but whether a film is animation is totally objective.

Three words:

A Scanner Darkly

Boom!
:D

Tue ugliest animation I ever saw. The suits were a neat trick but I couldn't finish the movie, it was just that terrible (in my opinion of course).

Still, it was animation. They may have done some really complex methods to get that animation, but it is still animation.

Says the person too #### ##### lazy to click the link or Google the answer so as to avoid being proved wrong?

Seems likely.
:D

Quark Blast wrote:

Is Tolkien racist with his portrayal of orcs? Robert E Howard?

Yes. Yes, they both are. Neither were as venomously or overtly hateful in their racism as, say, H.P. Lovecraft, but racist they were. (e.g. Tolkien's "swarthy men from the South" who fought on Sauron's side in the War for the Ring.)

thejeff wrote:

I don't think I'd consider the Mormon references an issue unless they go deeper than anything I've seen suggested. Echoing religious symbolism in fiction is common and you really have to get obnoxiously overt or use it as an attack on that religion for it to be bad.

I'm not objecting to the Mormon allegories, just pointing them out. I was also drawing attention to the fact that Hickman was raised in faith that was steeped in racism and racial essentialism. [To its credit, the LDS Church has officially dropped most of its racist theology since the mid 1970s.]

And I don't mean to knock religion in general: I'm a man of faith myself. Specifically, I'm an ordained Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and a vocal member of the Christian Left.

Well, religion doesn't interest me. Everyone takes a permanent dirt nap. End of story. I'll believe otherwise when I actually see it.

As for DL, my general opinion is summed nicely by Freehold DM , "I didnt find much out and out racist in Dragonlance, but it is a rather simplistic setting..."

As for Tolkien's use of swarthy, you can't ignore Faramir's lament at the death of the Haradrim soldier.

As for REH, I see his fiction as passively lacking concern for racism.

But thanks for the detailed replies (srsly) as it helps paint the bigger picture re the lawsuit.

Quark Blast wrote:

You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there.

I've been describing the current scenario and trends. I haven't said a word about what an 'end game' 20+ years from now would be like.

Your "current scenario" will take at least 20 years to implement. But I bet you already know that and are just playing dumb to score a lame rhetorical point. Yeah?

Quark Blast wrote:

@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.

Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer

Yeah, reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be a popular thing around here.

Not my problem though.
:D

So we should keep subsidizing fossil fuels to avoid having to subsidize decommissioning fossil fuel plants?

Are you really that ignorant?

We will be subsidizing both if certain powers get their way. The former because legacy, the latter because unbridled enthusiasm.

We are already massively in debt and soon to be trillions more because Coronavirus. That makes 2040 look pretty #### ##### at the moment. Not a problem if you won't be alive then, otherwise it sucks ###### #####.

Decommissioning is a big cost you continue to avoid accounting for.

Abandoning infrastructure well before EoL is a cost you continue to avoid accounting for.

If we were to take a measured approach things would work out much better short term and be no different in 2100.

You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there. Tis the same approach to the Coronavirus which you so disparage so vehemently.
:D

** spoiler omitted **... One other thing about the contract for the new DL series: This is pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if WotC had asked for queer representation in the book, but Hickman didn't want to add it (or added some queer characters that were harmful tropes). He's gone on record that he thinks homosexuality is a sin.

I see the sexism but unless the author is being allegorical I don't see racism.

Is Tolkien racist with his portrayal of orcs? Robert E Howard?

Also, I have the first Desert of Desolation module (got it free from a grognard in a box of old gaming stuff that was too manky to sell) and my main impression is one of lazy writing. Which incidentally goes along with what you're saying about borrowing story elements from a religious sect.

There's several billion people that think homosexuality is a sin so that's not much of a surprise.

I have a friend of a friend who's a dead serious DL fan. If I run into him I'll ask him what he thinks is going on with Goldmoon - that does seem odd.

At any rate there's lawyers on both sides and money to be made in the fight.
:D

I love how in QB's world cheaper energy costs lead to higher prices. For reasons.

If the cost of buying energy from solar plants is below the cost of buying it from coal plants, then it's not going to be bought from the coal plants. The utility companies aren't going to decide to keep subsidizing coal plants even though it costs them money.
If solar power is profitable and coal isn't, more solar will be built.

Sure. Just keep ignoring the higher utility prices in Germany these past two decades. If ignoring facts helps you feel better about not stretching your thoughts? Eh, who am I to gainsay?

I don't get it either. Not read all the books but maybe with a spoiler tag Haladir can tell us details.

Not trying to blow up the thread here, I just don't understand his point except in the most abstract way.

Style is a bit like genre, there are subjective elements and objective elements. You might quibble over whether a film is a romcom or not, but whether a film is animation is totally objective.

Three words:

A Scanner Darkly

Boom!
:D

I'm half surprised WotC are still publishing novels, and half surprised that they aren't beating a dead horse into a fine red paste.

I am interested in hearing WotC's side of the story, though.

Well, they weren't just "publishing novels" but DL and Drizzt novels. The very few that are guaranteed to make money.

Because lawsuit WotC will not be giving their side of the story outside the courtroom and will likely settle with NDAs at any rate. So move along, nothing to see here.

:D

Billionaires and their fellow investors will not pay decommissioning costs. Tax laws were created by the rich for the rich. If they benefit the little guy it's a side effect of the sausage making process.

@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.

If the "Green New Deal" goes through as planned, utility costs will roughly double for the next two decades. If you can afford that - good for you but yours is a definite minority position.

...What really is the advantage of Rulings vs Rules?..

Lower bar of entry for players and GM alike. Unless the GM (or player/s) is (are) OCD and groove(s) on the crunchy minutiae.* No accounting for taste.

* With 3.PF it's not uncommon for a party of four level 1 PCs to take over an hour real time to complete a straight up combat encounter. For most people that is painfully slow.

Keep in mind that rulings over rules doesnt simply imply rules lite vs rules heavy. Its a focus on rules intent. A rules lite system may only have 5 rules, but the intent is that every situation is resolved by one of them. That is not rulings over rules. If a GM/player wants to be adversarial/problematic, it doesnt matter which system they use.

Easier to hide your ########## if there are 5,000 rules. Especially with all the edge cases such a system engenders.

If you're always a #### with 5 rules, it means you're a ####; no disambiguation needed.
:D

Who pays for decommissioning coal power plants when they get replaced by other coal power plants? Or by natural gas plants?

As if you don't know but if you want to play dumb I'll play along.

Replaced at end of life (EoL) is baked into the initial investment.

Converted to natural gas before EoL is covered with money saved by the conversation to a more efficient fuel.

It's not like a solar/wind farm will fit on the footprint of a coal fired power plant, so that superfund site becomes all liability. Even more so when it's decommissioned before EoL.

Going green asap (broader economic considerations be damned) reduces profitability and those costs (those lost profits) get pushed to someone. And that someone won't be Elon Musk or Aloys Wobben.

It'll be the rate payers.