whether the focus should shift from prevention to adaptation.

Why the arbitrary binary? You do both, all the time. We can't stop preventing. What, are we just going to be like, oh well, we tried for a bit but didn't get the results we hoped for, let's burn all the coal and gas from now on? No, that's idiotic.

We've got some good results already, I've been seeing headlines that we're preventing the worst climate outcomes. That will likely continue to slowly improve. Every problem that comes with every solution is being addressed. Sometimes a step is taken backwards, but two steps are eventually taken in the right direction. It's happening in one of the dumbest ways possible, but it's happening.

Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used? China lent money, now they're taking payments. Is that debt collecting, or just the second part of lending money? Is a mortgage lender a debt collector? That's a loaded term meant to give you a negative impression, cuz no one likes a debt collector except perhaps an American hospital.

Second, the countries agreed to the loans. Paying them back was expected and predictable. If payments can't be made, then the debt will be restructured, meaning the payment schedule will be modified so the debtor country can make payments.

Third, the money was often used to build a potentially money-making asset, like a port. If used correctly, the assest should pay for a decent chunk of the loan.

Forth, I see a lot of half baked comments like 'China will take the port back' or 'China will take the hospital.' You must first ask, with what will China take back an African port, or hospital, or whatever? They don't have the means. They're not going to park an aircraft carrier off the coast and drop bombs until the loan is repayed, because they can't. So what does China want? China doesn't want the fucking port, they want resources and friends with benefits.

China's basically going here's a loan, build a port to import goods for your people. Import from whoever you like, it's your port. Oh by the way we make the cheapest and best everything (cuz they do), we'd be happy to sell you whatever you want, like solar panels or EVs. We also need colbalt and the finest silicon sand to build you these awesome EVs and solar panels you want, so we'll buy that from your mines and use your cool new port to ship it. Here's the loan payment schedule. No payments for the first 5 years, then afterward you pay X per year for 20-30 years. Oh no, you're having trouble making payments? Well we benefit from you having that port too, so let's restructure that debt so your people don't revolt and get cozy with the US.

There's no fucking debt trap. That's just racist and moronic. 'Those sneaky Chinese tricked the backwards brown people with a loan they can't repay.' Plus you can't repossess a structure on the other side of the world without a credible threat of violence. China does not have the means. Economic coercion, sure, but the debtor agreed to that and they're not stupid.

But Canadian money isn't real money

Indivisible has been extremely effective against Trump during his first term.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I've never heard of Indivisible. What have they done and how were they effective during Trump's first term?

My pet door just reads their microchips. You can get a collar tag if they're not chipped.

Its approach is novel: Most geoengineering research today is led by scientists in the US at universities and federal agencies, and the work they are doing is more or less accessible to public scrutiny. Stardust is at the forefront of an alternative path: One in which private companies drive the development, and perhaps deployment, of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet.

First, that isn't a novel approach. Second, being accessible to public scrutiny should be a requirement, since the consequences will affect all of us. Third, the people behind this have questionable backgrounds.

Could greener, more altruistic network states co-exist with money and power hungry billionaire-led communities?

Not peacefully, that's for sure. I think that touches on a problem humans have always had. Imagine 10 separate societies existed. If only one was a warmonger, while the other nine sought peace, then all ten need to behave like that one asshole or they'll be conquered eventually.

That's why I don't see how peaceful, green societies could live alongside rapicious capitalist monarchies. Actually I'm pretty sure that played out a couple times already, and that's why things are the way they are.

What kind of political/state environment would these network states exist within, if any? That could allow for different types of relations between network states, but coexistence between states with such different goals seems difficult.

No one really knows how osmosis works.

Critical Appraisal of the Milwaukee Protocol for Rabies: This Failed Approach Should Be Abandoned

Well you got a better idea?

I looked, and they don't.

You have a strange definition of fascism. I've poked around in those instances to see what the fuss is about. They're super far left and very much ideologically opposed to fascism. They're something weird, but they're definitely not fascists.

Why have a target at all instead of just saying we gotta do this asap? Is there a psychological reason? I feel like having a target and missing it may be worse than not having a target. I'm probably wrong, someone correct me please

He's still pissed their early collaboration with Tesla yielded nothing but a new competitor.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Tesla-20-years-on-EV-leader-s-rise-sparked-by-Toyota-partnership