amanamongbotss

amanamongbotss t1_jdrhd68 wrote

I hope so! I mean I’m definitely not rooting for the demise of CA, I like seeing them thrive economically and politically (even when it’s not all perfect).

My main concern is exactly that- I get have to basically be able to hold onto water for up to decades and it feels like no one in America, let alone California, is turning the boat fast enough to adjust our practices in the light of climate change.

My fear is all this freshwater just runs into the ocean and they’re in a severe drought again in 2-3 years, and this cycle keeps repeating…

1

amanamongbotss t1_jdre8r3 wrote

While I agree that many don’t see this as a solve, in speaking to my friends that still live in California, 3/6 definitely think that the drought is solved.

Of those 3, 2 are basically totally uninformed about climate change and uninterested in the subject. The other is liberal and understands climate change but is convinced the drought is done and it’s all good from here.

All 3 just keep bringing up how there’s 60ft of snow in the mountains and it’s basically been raining non-stop for 3 months.

I’m probably more pessimistic than they are, but this feels like an extreme weather event (albeit in the other direction from the drought, which was also extreme) and that CA will swing between the two extremes increasingly as time goes on.

But I just wanted to chime in that my anecdotal experience of Californians not being so dumb as to think water issues are over- I think there’s a larger group than you want to admit that truly does.

2

amanamongbotss t1_j6kl7ya wrote

Both those things are part of that equation. They’re tracking personnel constantly, with each new snap AND Burrow has 2 elite WRs. He’s making that throw 90% of the time in this situation because he’s on the road in a championship game and you have to.

So you’re wrong about that.

Then to go onto say Burrow didn’t play really well- well, we’ll have to just agree to disagree.

2

amanamongbotss t1_j6jwxbc wrote

They were still accurate throws, to great WRs, how have the ability to win contested throws. And they landed.

You don’t think that the “down to 3 rookie corners” and great WRs at the receiving end are baked into the calculation?

Also, one of those WAS a drop. That was not Burrow’s fault. He hit his guy perfectly.

3

amanamongbotss t1_j6iaafr wrote

The TD to Higgins was literally a perfect throw and a calculated risk. And it was barely even contested.

That was exactly the type of play you’d hope to see, he gave his guy a chance and put in a spot that played in his favor. Not sure how that reflects poorly for Burrow.

The throw to Chase, who is one of the best WRs in the game, was literally perfect. You can throw into tight windows (sometimes double covered) when you’re that accurate, especially when the guy that was doubled is Jamar Chase.

These aren’t marks against, at all

5

amanamongbotss t1_j6i6d3u wrote

I love that someone is rubbing it in.

That said, having watched the game last night- Burrow was making some very precise throws and good decisions (generally), and that isn’t reflected in the stats. The TD to Higgins was spot-on and there was also a play where he hit a barely open Chase on the helmet (was incomplete).

One of the INTs was definitely the WRs fault for not holding on while getting hit, too.

Stats, for football, aren’t as great as other sports with more controlled environments (like baseball).

12

amanamongbotss t1_iv142ro wrote

Oh this actually is adjusted for inflation.

But yea I believe oil does work it’s way into inflation pretty heavily, especially in public sentiment about it (gas prices are strong correlated with the sitting presidents approval rating- they’re almost identical).

I think inflation is also lower here in the US than many places abroad, and yea- while oil is a big chunk of that we have a lot of other things contributing too. Cost of wheat products for example. And I think the microchip shortage and other supply chain stuff as well…

1

amanamongbotss t1_iu5nt19 wrote

So, explain how explain a historical fact about industry knowing lead is toxic and using it anyways is anti-capitalist?

Or, is it true in your mind that saying "nicotine is addictive" is an anti-capitalist statement, too? Or that cigarettes cause cancer? Or that there are documents proving that the oil industry knew about climate change and did nothing?

Is it possible that these things be true, and also the people say them aren't anti-capitalist? Is pointing out a lack of accountability "anti" at all?

6

amanamongbotss t1_isd94u7 wrote

18

amanamongbotss t1_isco1fn wrote

One of the rare examples of the benevolent dictator. /s

He wasn’t a tyrant- he was elected democratically, and while “ignoring the Supreme Court” seems bad, considering our current SCROTUS, I think there are obviously times where ignoring them is probably better for the country. More often than not, even, as they’re usually behind the times (dred Scott?).

Out of curiosity was it the same Supreme Court that issued the dred Scott ruling? Cause yea- I’d have them arrested too.

Edit: yes, this was the Supreme Court Chief Justice that wrote that people of African descent weren’t citizens of the US and therefore claim none of the rights and privileges of Americans.

Taney, the Chief Justice, was a racist POS that stood in the way of progress. I understand that it is philosophically dangerous to argue a president should arrest or ignore another branch of government, for obvious reasons, but- I’m making an exception here with the benefit of hindsight. Fuck that SCOTUS.

37