The most perfect pair of tweets today. The sort of tweets I wish I'd made. #jealous
I can't tell if @MattWalshBlog is serious, but anyway, data.
The Montreal Protocol treaty started in 1989 where governments (including US) phased out the CFCs that were damaging the ozone, causing their use to plummet. The ozone hole has been slowly shrinking as a result.
They remain in the atmosphere for a long time, so the steady shrinking can take another century.
Had we not taken action in the 1980s, things would be catastrophic now.
As for acid rain, it's caused mostly by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The Clean Air Act of 1963 and SO₂ regulations in 1971 have steadily cleaned the atmosphere of SO₂, like adding scrubbers to coal plants (aka. "clean coal").
Nitrogen oxides have been cleaned primarily with the catalytic converter in your car. You know how you need regular emissions checks? That's one of the government regulations that has largely eliminated acid rain in the United States.
We used to talk about smog in cities. That's also been disappearing because of emissions controls in cars. Because government regulation.
I'm wholly in agreement that the EPA overstepped its authority trying to regulate CO₂, and that it needs an act of Congress to make CO₂ regulations. But it's clear that the EPA and Clean Air Act have done a tremendous amount to clean our air.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The NYTimes has these pieces today where their op-ed writers admit "I was wrong". Only, most of the pieces really aren't -- they are mostly justifications why they are now right.
Krugman does the right thing, simply admitting he was wrong about inflation, a true mea culpa.
I read them so you don't have to:
Krugman: I regret being wrong
Goldberg: I regret being wrong
Collins: I regret being wrong
Brooks: I learned
Tufecki: I learned
Stephens: Not really wrong
Friedman: Not really wrong
Manjoo: I was wrong then, but right now
In other words, there were three people who admit being wrong, full stop, that what they said in the past was wrong.
The other five use this as an opportunity to grind whatever ax they are currently grinding, that past wrongness just goes to show why they are right now.
Explainer: this code snippet was written somebody to explain buffer overflows.
It was then copied and plagiarized, with plagiarisms of plagiarisms, acquiring nonsensical errors ("external link") along the way.
For one thing, it shows how pervasive plagiarism is in such things.
For another, it shows how deeply those teaching technical content don't actually understand it fully, and would be unable to explain without plagiarism.
This is the typical sort of thing that plagues Twitter. The facts are true, but people misunderstand the context. twitter.com/i/events/15495…
People don't know what the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" is. They imagine something like a reserve to keep the military running in case of attack. Instead, it's part of global agreement in case of world oil shocks.
It's part of the IEA, a cartel of oil IMPORTING countries, who agreed upon common action of the cartel of oil EXPORTING countries caused oil shocks in the 1970s.
By the way, I'm relatively pro-police. I don't view them as oppressors so much as incompetent public servants.
If they pull you over for speeding, they either have the evidence of such or they don't. When they ask "do you know how fast you were going?" it's not a fight for your rights. You have a right not to answer.
Yes, somebody in their 70s is likely to have more coordination problems, so is more likely to fall over because of toe clips. So it's not as if there is no aging issues here.
But the fact that Joe can ride a bicycle (as opposed to Trump who can't) is a sign of vitality.
The majority of the population hasn't ridden with toe clips, so this leaves their mind as an important factor in the incident. In their minds, it's reduced to Joe Biden falling over. And because they politically want to be believe, they become impervious to truth.
1/ I'm a libertarian so I used to consider the Federalist as my kinda people. Then they got all Trumpy and discarded all their principles. As an elections fact-checker, I know this is false.
2/ Things like Lindell's "Absolute 9-0" and D'Souza's "2000 Mules" claim evidence of mass fraud, but keep it secret so nobody can see. Moreover, their claims are incredibly improbable, technology just doesn't work as they claim, so no rational person would believe without proof.
3/ Fact-check: There's no evidence of mass voter fraud. The only evidence of fraud is just occasional incidents by individuals you every year (by both parties) that doesn't come close to overturning the election.