ChrisFromIT t1_jdk0dnb wrote

The issue is that there is an misunderstanding of what is happening and location.

Based on u/garlicroastedpotato first comment of this

>This isn't fracking. This is the Canadian oilsands.

He is very likely referring to the open pit mining/surface mines of the oilsands. It is pretty much what everyone refers to when they say the oil sands.

The article is talking about the oil sands formation. It is actually fairly large, it goes so far south that the oil fields in Montana and North Dakota are part of that oil sands formation. To get access to the oil in that formation, if you are not doing open pit mining you are pretty much doing drilling which is part of the process of fracking. On top of that Fracking and Steam-assisted gravity drainage is very similar in nature.

And considering u/garlicroastedpotato said it isn't fracking in his comments, he has to be referring to the open pit mining commonly referred to as the Canadian oilsands.

And if you look at the article, the earthquake is around the the Peace River oil sands deposit. Very far away from the open pit mines.

Ergo, u/garlicroastedpotato is both right and wrong. He is right in what is happening, but wrong terms and locations. And because he used the wrong terms and location, he is overall wrong.


ChrisFromIT t1_jdipk43 wrote

>You're wrong.

Nope. While you are right that there is a thing called deepwell disposal, it happens in other parts of the oil and gas industry. The byproduct of the oil sands isn't disposed of in deepwell disposals. At least when it comes to the surface mines.

When it comes to them having to extract the oil from the ground, yes, deepwell disposal is done. Because the well is already there for them to use.


ChrisFromIT t1_jdim6j1 wrote

With the oilsands, they aren't injecting fluid into the ground.

The sand/dirt containing the oil is dug out, then goes through a process of extracting the oil from the sand/dirt that involves the usage of water.


ChrisFromIT t1_jdf0wnu wrote

Nope. USB4's bandwidth in symmetric mode is 80 Gbps. While PCIe 4.0 x16 is 32 GBps. The difference is big B, bytes vs little b, bits. USB4 is 80 Gbits per second or 10 GBytes per second. While PCIe 4.0 x16 is 32 GBytes per second.

USB4's bandwidth would be the equivalent of PCIe 2.0 x16 or PCIe 3.0 x8. Just slightly higher bandwidth that that.


ChrisFromIT t1_j954qkz wrote

>His point there was that if a Company is publicly known as a 2 strike company then the positions at the company are clearly unreliable.

The issue is they are advocating for what is known as the three strikes system. People advocate for it thinking it reduces crime. Studies are finding it doesn't.

And there are issues with it as well that make it a more complicated system to fix those issues, or lessen those issues. And you would still end up potentially hurting innocent people.

For example, say a company has 2 strikes already. It has been 10 years since the last strike, ops they accidentally did something that would result in a fine. Nope, it is the 3rd strike, business gets liquidated. Or 20 years since the second strike or 40 years.

Or what if the fine was for something completely unrelated to the first two strikes. Or what if not enough time was given to correct the issues that caused a previous strike thus requiring another fine.

The better solution is going after the c level executives or the managers or employees actively engaging in the activities that caused the need for the fine. Not shutting down the business.


ChrisFromIT t1_j951fcn wrote

>Apparently you can't read your own or lack the capacity to admit when you invalidated your own argument.

You have to resort to ad hominems to make your point, that means you lost the debate since you cannot attack the argument you resort to attacking the person.

Ps. Just so you know, my comments were about parts of the company doing illegal activities. Which you said companies could still be seized by the government. And I corrected you in saying only if those illegal activities were the sole or main source of revenue.

Not sure why you think that correction invalidates the earlier statement.


ChrisFromIT t1_j94w376 wrote

Do you know how stupid of an argument that is. You are comparing apples and oranges. In criminal organizations, everyone in it has broken the law in some way. In a legitimate business, not everyone has broken the law when it is found that part of the business operated in a way that constitutes a crime or an action that is punishable by a fine.

So what? You think Johnny in the mailroom deserves to go to jail and lose his job because some idiot decided to cause the company to break the law? Because that is what your argument is saying.

So I hope you see how stupid your argument is.


ChrisFromIT t1_j945rag wrote

If you make it double the amount of profit they brought it, that is a good way to pretty much shutdown the business. It should be like 20% of the revenue. Or something. And it should be based on revenue, not profit too. As they could easily lower their profits for the year when they get fined, thus lowering the amount needed to pay the fine.


ChrisFromIT t1_j7dthb9 wrote

You are making a huge mistake on mixing up income vs revenue. The reason why businesses are taxed on income(profit) is because taxes on revenue could cause a business to go out of business and it really disincentives reinvesting profits into the company which leads to more employment either directly or indirectly.


ChrisFromIT t1_iu1tyir wrote

You are essentially trying to argue that it is impossible for an advertiser to know what ads are in their ad campaign. I'm just arguing that there are tools there for them to know.

And frankly if they don't know what ads are in their ad campaign, that is not an advertiser you would want to use.


ChrisFromIT t1_iu1plgv wrote

>I don't explicitly check every single of the thousands or millions of ads served, then I would have no idea which of the ad copy facebook is serving.

Two things here. First, if you are ad advertiser on Facebook, you know explicitly that Facebook can only serve the ad copies you give it for the ad campaign. You can give it a million different ad copies and you know 100% that any ads served for your ad campaign is one of those million different ad copies.

Second, Facebook tells you how many impressions are given for each ad copy and the click thru rate, so as an advertisers you can see what ads are being served.

>Bro, c'mon, reading comprehension.

I explained why I read it the way I did. It is your fault for not making it clear.