And yet even here it's not entirely factual -- the correct term is Democratic Senators. "Democrat" is a shortening often used for partisan purposes.

Unfortunately if you're asking this of yourself you are almost certainly burned out. Speaking as someone currently thinking the same thing -- all the times in my career where I was powering through this sort of thing never crossed my mind, it's only come up more recently as the hours have begun to climb.

Being middle age is a risk for sure, but also keep in mind you have only one or two big changes left before you're done. It matters more to get into a spot that can take you where you need to go.

Good luck with it.

Egg, meet face. Pretty funny that this was obviously "Google, find posts that prove my point" with nary a further shred of investigation.

There doesn't appear to be much of a point to the article.

Yes, because as we all remember there were no countries allied with Germany for any duration of the war.

It sounds like you should read the report.

"Life sucking for everyone" is not equal to the government of the day targeting a racial group for the multiple negative policies that were enacted. What level of injustice do you ascribe to taking children away from families if not extreme?

Apparently absent from Gee's approach: reductions to administration and management.

When a university cuts $800k from its library and keeps chartering jets for executives you know this is not going to be about what is best for society or students, no matter how folksy the president wishes to appear.

I would have greatly preferred a non-clickbait title for this.

Some news isn't valuable anymore. In the world we're going towards, wouldn't it be fair to expect that reliable/verified news will increase in value? Similarly, what is the true value of local news that would otherwise go unreported?

It's important to consider what someone would pay for news directly alongside the value that a healthy media ecosystem plays in a healthy society. It's not called the fourth estate because someone thought it would be fun.

It is bizarre that you don't think safe workplaces are a right. The life situation that leads to this view is equally fascinating and concerning.

That's true, but you can support a land tax without the other tenets of Georgism. It's unusually reductive.

I agree, it feels like NASA has been thrown in to create a veneer of respectability for these conclusions. NASA does publish regular sea level assessments (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) so perhaps that's where this has come from. Nothing in their current reporting suggests that they would have jumped in the 90's from "sea levels are rising" to "countries are going to be wiped off the map tomorrow". It is still fair to say, however, that there are countries that are going to be significantly/existentially impact if the current trend of sea rise continues.

Within any scientific discipline there is a broader consensus and there are more bold exceptional claims on both the high and low points. One could safely argue the consensus view on this topic has been moving too slowly.

Kyoto was in 1995 and predicted 1.5-4.5 degrees of change in the mid-21st century. Hardly "12 years out" mate.

What has become more serious is that the incoming data and predictive models are starting to line up with greater accuracy and those forecasts are very worthy of concern. In the face of warnings that drawing down our bank account is going to leave us broke, is the answer "oh, I've been hearing that for a long time now, what's the worst that can happen"?

You appear to be making up your own narrative here.

In reality, climate science has gone from somewhat uncertain (around 1995: Kyoto) to progressively more certain as measurements have confirmed modellable outcomes.

Our need to change our behaviors has been increasingly important for the past few decades, it's only become an all-out emergency more recently as it's become painfully more obvious that large amounts of humanity are unwilling to change our economic preferences even when faced with obliberation.

McKinsey's product is McKinsey services.

Imagine all the effort that goes into marketing, networking, and greasing the wheels of business that goes into selling this and you'll more readily appreciate why McKinsey keeps appearing in spots they have no business being involved in. Their product isn't a good or sound outcome, it's paying the fee to be able to append "McKinsey said..." onto a decision.