"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

It’s come full circle. During my uni days and early 20’s I loved posting about random shit I was doing. Now I’m 35 I rarely share anything about my life. There’s certainly a place for social media but I think the way we use it has definitely evolved. Like most things tend to really.

I’ve had a Facebook account for 15 years, in that time I think 0.001% of my posts ever referred to my life personally rather than my opinion on something. Don’t get me wrong people can do what they like, and with some people it’s nice if they are genuinely happy with how their life is going rather than being an attention seeking void trying to get people to ask “what’s up Hun?”

I felt guilty because I found out that a friend of mine who had moved back to Australia had died last year, as hadn’t spoken to her in a few months (that’s life for you)

[Letters]

rather than being an attention seeking void trying to get people to ask “what’s up Hun?”

That sort of shit pisses me off on FB.
I mostly post nonsense on there. Stuff I find amusing and hope will amuse others. There's the occasional serious post but it's rare.
I find it a useful way of keeping up with people who I rarely see or hear from, good to see some of what's going on in their life.
I'll sometimes post stuff I'm doing - places I'm going, evenings out or whatever. Nothing particularly personal though. When I post pictures of the kids it's from the back so their face isn't splashed all over the place.

[HCZ_Reborn]

That sort of shit pisses me off on FB.
I mostly post nonsense on there. Stuff I find amusing and hope will amuse others. There's the occasional serious post but it's rare.
I find it a useful way of keeping up with people who I rarely see or hear from, good to see some of what's going on in their life.
I'll sometimes post stuff I'm doing - places I'm going, evenings out or whatever. Nothing particularly personal though. When I post pictures of the kids it's from the back so their face isn't splashed all over the place.

Yeah I think people need to be careful about splashing pictures of their kids everywhere, what they think is just going to their friends will become nonce fodder very quickly. Horrible world we live in really but no use in pretending otherwise.

[Marc Overmars]

A friend of mine posts her kids near enough every week, find it a bit weird really. Not even about it just being nonce fodder but I’m not really sure those kids will appreciate it when they get older and find themselves plastered on social media.

[Letters]

My niece isn't as bad as she used to be, but she posts her kids on FB way too much IMO.
Another friend had a baby a few months back and posts pictures every sodding day. Dude, no-one cares about your bloody baby. Or not that much.
And another friends - more MrsL's friends than mine, but we're friends on FB - posts some quite personal things about her kids which I don't think they'll thank her for when they get older.
FB is a strange place, really.

[HCZ_Reborn]

A friend of mine posts her kids near enough every week, find it a bit weird really. Not even about it just being nonce fodder but I’m not really sure those kids will appreciate it when they get older and find themselves plastered on social media.

Hmmm hadn’t considered that angle.

[Letters]

In other news, I'm in the Public Sector and this was announced with great fanfare a few weeks back

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/pr...strikes-unions

Excitedly checked my bank account today.
Noted how much tax they'd taken off of it.
Cancelled the yacht.

[Mac76]

I resisted Facebook for many years because of the privacy concerns, but given my family live a way away and i don't see them that often, it's good to keep in touch with them that way. To be honest it was my wife telling me constantly what my sister etc were doing that persuaded me to join and find out for myself It's very much just family and some very close friends though, literally 20 people...

i do enjoy the facebook groups though, i'm on quite a few for various long-standing bands i follow and it's such a great way to keep up with what they're up to, plus exchange stories, memorabilia etc with fellow followers of the band

but one thing that surprises me about the fucntionality in all these platforms, especially facebook, is just how poor it is - it's like using a really early beta version of something

i'm not on insta and while again i resisted twitter for a long time, i'm now on it and there are some very funny things on there tbf

i'd have been happy to give Threads a go if it wasn't tied to insta, again i think that' s really big error and it wouldn't suprise me if they break the link at some point

[Letters]

This deserved a reply but I waited till I had some time to watch the video.

Yeah, and I already informed you that scientific consensus is irrelevant.

Informed
You asserted it's irrelevant and I responded. It's an incorrect assertion. It is neither irrelevant nor conclusive.

I thought you were an avid BBC viewer?

You thought wrong.

Are you saying you haven't witnessed the overwhelming bias when it comes to who can speak and who can't on platforms that reach a wide target audience?

I don't really know how you assess that. What do you mean by who can and can't speak? I mean, I'm never invited to speak about climate change on the BBC because why would I be? I'm not an expert.
It's not that I "can't", I'm not banned, I'm just not someone they would invite to and why should they? Who are these experts who are prevented from speaking?

On every media platform, in every international forum, everywhere where politics holds sway the debate STARTS from the assumption the science is settled.

Well, that's probably true. Science should obviously always allow for the possibility that it's wrong of course. But right now the evidence is pretty compelling.

Yet studies (which I have little doubt are also biased in favour of the so-called, already debunked, consensus) suggest there is no significant bias in the volume of peer reviewed research once private funding is removed as a factor. Obviously the majority of scientific literature favours the climate agenda because operators of the agenda fund science to find specific outcomes.

Well, you say that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/

The alarmists also have the great advantage of being able to point out the window and scream, "It's a Cerberus heatwave!" (not even a joke), and the average citizen will be able to feel it is hot.

Well, they have the advantage of anyone over 40 who has a memory knowing that the climate has changed in their lifetimes. That's not up for debate.

Same scam as Covid. Nobody was dying in the streets but the fear of it was sufficient.

Why do there have to be piles of bodies in the streets to make it a situation that requires a response?
I told you many times about the conversation I had with an ICU doctor. Someone on the front line. It wasn't a situation he'd ever experienced before.
Why are you so unable to think in anything other than black and white? "Piles of bodies in the street" and "nothing to see here" aren't the only two options.

Sounds to me like you're doing the Covid thing again. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

I was right about Covid. It was a situation which required a response but the government's response was shambolic. Of course it was, they're fuckwits.
This is another example of your black and white thinking. "No response was required" and "The government's response was correct" are not the only two options here.
I was certainly right when I said their response was designed to deal with the situation and not part of a one way slide into the sort of dystopia you prophesied.

It sounds like you are saying you believe nothing will be done (apart from the disintegration of our economies and civil liberties) but you would like to see MUCH MORE done? Like what?

Well this is a good question. I don't know if MUCH MORE should be done, but I think efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are doomed to fail. So probably the effort should be spent on technologies which reduce the impact of the climate changing. Or can mitigate the level of change in other ways.
You surely agree it's changing, no? I imagine you're also of an age where the difference has been noticeable in your lifetime.

Ignore the political bits. Focus on how the models are rigged and the data manipulated. Don't worry about the speaker and focus on the message.

OK. So I did watch this. The trouble is...I just don't know if he's right. I don't have the knowledge or experience. And, frankly, neither do you.
But I would note that he was presenting to this lot:

https://www.desmog.com/european-inst...te-and-energy/

the group argues that climate policy is a ‘pretense’ for leaders to ‘control the economy and the population’ and to “burden people with taxes",

Which sounds right up your street. And this is the issue with you and your ability to process information. For all of us that ability is affected by our biases and worldview, but yours are quite extreme.
Any videos I've posted in scientific areas which you disagree with you dismiss as propaganda, even if the videos are just by individuals. Who is the propaganda for?
But you're happy to accept what this bloke says which fits in with your worldview that "they" are always up to something. The group he's presenting to have an agenda too, why is it OK if it's an agenda which you like?
I've highlighted many times how that worldview led you to wrong conclusions on Covid. Your failure to acknowledge you were wrong or consider why is a bit weird and makes it difficult to take your proclamations on other subjects seriously.

[IBK]

given the number of exoplanets in the universe it would be unlikely that there isn't some form of evolved life (let's use that term rather than 'intelligent') somewhere

personally i still think it's really naive that we send those probes out with all sorts of information including our location etc, for any old malevolent alien species to pick up and then come and enslave us or just wipe us all out

This is my favourite contextualisation of the size of the universe. It shows how far radio waves from Earth (travelling almost as fast as light) have travelled since 1895. This is why meeting other 'evolved' life is so unlikely. We need to factor in time as well. Human beings will long since have wiped themselves out in less than the blink of an eye in the timescales of the universe.