SpaceCowboy

Why is it Americans never hold the GOP to account? Why is it when the GOP does something bad, you have to somehow work it around so it's somehow the Democrats fault? Why do you wonder why it's difficult to keep the GOP from getting power and doing horrible shit when everyone in the US blames everything on the Democrats even when they aren't in power?

I'm Canadian and I wouldn't blame the opposition party for something the governing party is doing. It's a strange part of American culture to blame a Democrats for everything and it doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't happen the other way, I don't recall people ever blaming the Republicans when the Democrats do something they don't like.

It's a weird thing about American culture and it's resulted in the party that gets blamed for everything having no power to stop the party that never gets blamed for anything. But y'all continue blaming them for being in this situation.

"Bill Clinton and... other Presidents..."

Shocking allegations about the guy that used to creep around in the Miss Teen USA changing room!

You don't seem to have a counter for the comparison between leftists and MAGAs other than the left-right social construct. These groups aren't significantly different, I've had conversations with both leftists and MAGAs and the conversations and they are the same conversation on all but a few topics.

Every day the two groups become more similar to each other and now we're at a point that it's only if someone inserts a slogan or mentions a specific ethnic group they dislike that I can tell the difference between a MAGA and a leftist. And that's not always a reliable indicator sometimes since both MAGA and leftists sometimes hate the same ethnic groups.

Yeah and that's where the capitalism angle comes in. With supply side economics pushed by Reagan, wealthy people are supposed to do things that'll create jobs. They're "job creaters", right?

Problem is they don't have any good ideas. And that would normally be fine, you could have employees that know what they're doing developing technology that'll make a production line 2% more efficient. Those kinds of advancements are important.. if we're 2% more efficient, we can make 2% more stuff, and so we're 2% better off. But that's not exciting and doesn't attract investment. So instead we get these big bold "visionary" ideas that soak up a lot of investment, and we have a whole lot of people making marketing campaigns to promote these "game-changer" ideas to attract even more investment. So we have a society where we're near full employment but a lot of people not producing anything that has a benefit to society.

So those scientists in Jurassic Park (or the real life scientists at that "Dire Wolf" company) could be working on something beneficial like applying their skills towards curing diseases. But instead they're working on useless things because the money goes towards "visionaries" that don't actually have good ideas on how to contribute to society. But I don't think that absolves the scientists from taking those jobs. But people have to pay the bills I'm not going to judge them for it either. The Dire Wolf thing seems stupid to me but nowhere near as dangerous as Jurassic Park. In the case of JP, at some point you have to ask yourself "is my job going to cause harm to people", but the JP scientists didn't seem to ask the question because they were just interested in the challenge of making a dinosaur.

But yeah the Dire Wolf thing is stupid and useless... for now. But hey, eventually that company might do something useless that'll get people killed!

It seems he's learned that the problem with tariffs is that other countries will tariff back.

So now his current strategy is to levy tariffs and threaten countries with more tariffs if they reciprocate.

Same has it's always been, maybe he'll TACO or maybe he'll crash the world economy.

Meanwhile in Canada, it's become easier to identify products from the US because stores have to put them on discount to try to entice people to buy them. Stores aren't making money by selling US products at a discount so every time I go to the grocery store, there's new products made in Canada (or at least non-US countries) replacing the US products.

Happy to report I can now get a head of iceberg lettuce from Quebec in both grocery stores I go to, seems all of our lettuce came from the US before. I had to get crazy expensive hydroponically grown lettuce (or some weird black lettuce) for months. But now I can get iceberg lettuce ("normal" lettuce to me) produced in Canada. It was weird for a bit with some products, but it's becoming more and more easier and normal to avoid US products. Merci to Quebec for growing lettuce! Hopefully the stores will source lettuce from the EU in the winter.

Not sure how Trump is solving the trade deficit "problem" with this though. Are Americans in the the Midwest buying less oil from Canada (which is THE cause of the trade deficit)? Gonna have to spend a lot of money building pipelines to get oil from the "Gulf of America" and refitting refineries to process that oil. Or God forbid, do a Green New Deal in the Midwest. Otherwise you'd be selling less oil overseas, which would impact trade balance with other countries. But then Canada would sell to those countries instead. But go ahead, fill your boots, I'm good with oil companies having to pay a lot of money refitting refineries as that will just be another version (though less efficient) of a carbon tax.

Canadians are buying less products from the US and it seems unlikely the US is going to buy less oil from Canada any time soon, so it seems Trump's efforts are just increasing the trade deficit. Carney could put reciprocal tariffs on the US or not, either way Canadians are going to be buying less and less from the US going forward.

Trump is fucking over Americans more than anyone else.

Nah the tariff stuff started many news cycles ago. Trump just really believes tariffs work.

I have just my last name, and get signed up for all kinds of bullshit by people with my last name because they'll enter firstnamelastname@gmail.com when signing up for stupid shit.

but have some physical metal rods as backup.

Do you know how high the animal can jump? Do you know whether or not they'll be able to climb those rods?

Also maybe don’t make the dinosaurs bulletproof.

How would you know which weapons an animal is vulnerable to before it's fully grown?

The problem is you don't actually know many the variables you're trying to make a solution for. You're assuming you would have thought of a lot of these things only after you've seen another solution fail. Hindsight is 20/20. But if you didn't have the benefit of hindsight how are you going to solve a problem involving lifeforms with an unknown level of intelligence, and an unknown resilience to weapons, and having unknown behaviours? You're only going to know you missed something after whatever you designed failed.

There's the part of the movie where Hammond is eating the melting ice cream saying "next time we'll do it better." That would be you because you're certain you can solve a problem that's not defined by empirical evidence (it doesn't exist because they're new animals) but based on assumptions about a new lifeform being similar to existing lifeforms we currently have in zoos, and think keeping animals we have familiarity with is easy (it isn't, animals in zoos actually do escape containment).

You're showing the hubris the story is warning against. Science depends on empirical evidence, and there wouldn't be any empirical evidence on the behaviour of new animals grown in a lab. And if you are completely ignorant of animal behaviour (because you think it's irrelevant) you're going to be very bad at building a zoo. But you're countering that by ignoring all of the knowledge we have about building a zoo (animal behaviour is important!) because there's hubris layered on top of hubris.

Im saying those factors should be understandable

There's the hubris. You're assuming "we got this" on something that isn't going to be understandable until after the animals escape.

Science is about trial and error. Zoos function because over a very long period of time mistakes have been made and we learned from those mistakes. We've learned these lessons over centuries.

You're talking about a zoo where every animal in it we have zero experience with handling.

You're thinking handling animals we have centuries of experience with is the same as handling animals we have zero experience with because there's a tendency in the science community to be reductive towards other disciplines. Just as you might think that running a zoo is super easy - barely an inconvenience, an expert in genetic engineering (but no experience in running a zoo) might think the same. And the guy running the company might think "well he's an expert that saying it's no problem" and think they don't need to put any effort into studying the behavior of the animals. The "clever girl" dude warns Hammond they should put just down the velociraptors because he spent time watching the animals and studying their behaviour (they never attack the same place twice). But I don't think that guy had a PhD, so he was ignored.

Right now we have occasional one off story about a tiger jumping higher than tigers were known to be able to jump, getting out and mauling some people. That's one mistake on one animal. An animal we have centuries of experience in handling, and we still get things wrong sometimes.

A zoo trying to contain many different animals that we have zero experience in handling would have these kinds of events happening constantly, and possibly have multiple issues happening at once possibly resulting in a cascading system failure. Which is what the story portrays. But all it takes is one scientist acting like they're experts in a subject they look down their nose at other disciplines (how many zoos have you run that qualifies you to say it's not a problem?) to convince an owner there is no need to worry about those naysayers who aren't brilliant genetic scientists.

There would definitely be some people in the Pentagon that would try to weaponize velociraptors after seeing what they're capable of. Dogs are used in war, and there have been attempts to use dolphins and other animals.

An animal that can go into buildings, open doors and methodically search rooms? Yeah they'd definitely be putting some DARPA money into seeing if they could be trained to go into combat situations.