Jump to content

Jason

Premium Account
  • Content Count

    1,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,254 Likes

1 Follower

About Jason

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold
  • Birthday November 22

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

2,141 profile views
  1. @DeeCee So I was reading a story about the teenager who egged the Australian senator, and reportedly said "Don't egg politicians. You get tackled by 30 bogans at the same time". I had to google "bogan" since that term isn't used here, and this video was one of the top results: I might've laughed harder than I should have at this (especially since some of the locality humour is going over my head), but I'm pretty sure I know what a bogan is now.
  2. Only about 300 times more likely than dying from a lightning strike.
  3. Sorry, I meant to reply earlier. Regarding specifically what lorddemaxus mentioned though, I feel like people who get really upset about things like "why are they casting X as a minority etc." is fairly limited in general, but more widespread among certain online communities. Most people (as far as I can tell) just don't care that much about that sort of stuff. But yes, people who are skeptical of the wage gap etc. are more widespread. Although I'm not sure that it's necessarily reactionary, for example I don't think there's ever been a time when most people accepted and especially understood the wage gap. (And certainly, some of the statistics quoted for the wage gap are easily dismissed by anyone inclined to be skeptical.) That being said, I do think social media makes it much easier for skeptical/reactionary viewpoints to spread more widely. (p.s. congrats on getting engaged!)
  4. Small amendment: his PhD was on interplanetary dust, not interstellar dust.
  5. "Nerd" isn't what I'd call the defining characteristic of all the young males on YouTube and elsewhere who are extremely salty about minority or female representation. I don't mean to argue about semantics, I agree that there's way too many gamers/comic book fans who are bigoted with regards to minority and female representation etc, It's just that linking it to "nerdiness" completely obscures the problem. All the nerds I know (and I know a lot, I am one myself) don't feel that way at all. The defining characteristic of nearly all these people is they're young (white) males who are unhappy with their lives in some way and want to blame something else for it, so they've constructed this narrative in their heads about how white males are the real victims. This is even true of the great many of them that I certainly would never called nerds (because they're morons).
  6. I have a sneaking suspicion the answer is yes.
  7. Using BOM avg. ticket price ($9.14), ~$410M.
  8. For what it's worth, I sincerely believe I'm doing nearly as much as I can on a personal basis. I don't eat red meat anymore except when it's being served to me at a social gathering. I still eat eggs and poultry, and drink a bit of milk, but maintaining body weight has always been hard for me, so I'm pretty anxious about giving up on easily digestible protein (also a problem for me, but the details would be TMI). I take public transit everywhere, or walk. Admittedly, I'd rather not have a car right now for financial reasons as well, but when I do get a car it will be the most fuel efficient one I can afford. That probably means a tiny subcompact, because I definitely won't be able to buy electric. I generally try to minimize my electricity usage, probably more for financial reasons if truth be told. Ontario gets most of its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric already, so this isn't a very impactful thing for me to do most of the time. But none of this enough. Not even close to it, and everyone following my example on a personal basis still wouldn't be, because the decisions on what energy sources to use for electricity, and industry, aren't made by individuals. I don't think I should have to share all this every time I talk about climate change, because I'm not asking for sacrifice. I want innovation. I want a revenue-neutral carbon tax (and a global system of tariffs on countries that refuse to oblige) because I believe that will encourage industry to innovate, and industry and governments alike to seek carbon-free (or nearly so) sources of energy. I want the revenue from that carbon-tax to be used as tax relief for the individuals, so that the impact on working class people is minimal, and even of net benefit for those who can reduce their fuel consumption. I don't think such a revenue-neutral carbon tax, properly implemented and raised gradually, will demand sacrifice, except from the fossil fuel industry. It doesn't have to be a carbon tax, but I don't know of a more efficient way of encouraging industry to find new energy sources other than fossil fuels. Nothing else will suffice. If everyone in the world did everything they could to conserve energy on a personal basis and reduce fuel use while still eating and going to work etc., it still wouldn't avert the catastrophic climate change that awaits humanity if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
  9. If it says "Hakuna Matata" and has images or other quotes from the film on it, or was sold in a way that associated with it the film (e.g. buy Lion King t-shirts here!) - they'd be able to sue for trademark infringement. If it says "Hakuna Matata" and there aren't any other associations with film on the shirt or with how it was being sold, they'd have a real hard time winning a trademark infringement case in court, and they'd know better than to try.
  10. Trademarking the phrase doesn't mean what a lot of you think it means. Trademarks are specifically in association with a product, the trademark will protect use of the phrase in association with this movie or its merchandise. For example, "Christmas" and "Merry Christmas" have been trademarked literally dozens of times each, to protect various products and services associated with Christmas in some way. It doesn't stop anyone else from using those words, or from trademarking their own "Christmas" or "Merry Christmas" product, as long as it's a distinct product. I'm aware there's potential for abuse with trademarks, but merely seeking a trademark really isn't as big a deal as it's being made out to be.
  11. The big advantage of hydrogen fuel is that it's easily made using electricity, unlike carbon-based fuels which (probably, in practice) have to be made by photosynthesis to be carbon-neutral. So as long as you have clean electricity generation, then your hydrogen fuel cell is emissions-free, and doesn't require devoting land (potentially enormous amounts of it) to producing biofuels. The big disadvantage is that while we've figured out safe ways to transport and store hydrogen, none of them are particularly efficient on a volumetric basis - meaning that even if we had the infrastructure in place (which we don't) people would have to get used to refilling their vehicles much more frequently than they do now. I think it's a possibility, especially since technological improvements are probably possible (I'm not an expert though, far from it). In the long-term, I suspect the solution might be something along the lines of specially engineered algae that can be grown in large amounts in places that don't support agriculture (like deserts, which also have a lot of sunlight). But that might just be my bias from having a background in studying photosynthesis/biochemistry/genetics etc. The other possibility is of course a chemical process that produces a carbon-based fuel using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I'm not sure what the solution is to internal combustion in vehicles, but again the key point is that a carbon tax that starts low and rises over time will allow the market to find the most efficient solution, whatever that ends up being.
  12. I don't care where you got your education. This statement is flat-out wrong. For electricity generation, the lifetime cost of nuclear power is only slightly more expensive than coal and there are jurisdictions that have nearly entirely replaced electricity generation *from coal with nuclear. The main reason why so few have done so has much more to do with politics than it does economics or for that matter, physics. Where combustion cannot be replaced by electric engines, biofuels can replace oil, coal, and gas. Admittedly not easily, but it's simply not true to say that it cannot be done.
  13. I missed quite a bit in a few hours. Regarding meat eating, and GHG emissions, it's true that beef is the worst but it's actually more to do with the grain generally required to produce beef (~7 kg grain/1 kg beef) compared to other meats. The reason is because cattle are generally eaten at a later age, which means more of the grain has been wasted as body heat rather than used to build biomass. Also, the land use factor is a one-time pay in of carbon dioxide from deforestation, over the long term the problem is the large amounts of energy being used for agriculture. And of course right now, most of that energy is coming from fossil fuels. Don't let anyone tell you fossil fuels can't be replaced, or that our best bet is carbon capture etc. Nuclear power only has a slightly higher lifetime cost than coal. Replacing internal combustion in vehicles is indeed trickier, but once we've made electricity generation carbon-free that will buy us some time to find solutions for vehicles, which on a global scale is more likely to involve carbon-neutral biofuels than electric vehicles (because of scarcity of lithium). The key point is, as @PANDA has mentioned/implied, the best part of a (necessarily global) carbon tax is indeed that it will hit all activities precisely in proportion to how much carbon dioxide they generate, after which industries and individuals can find solutions for avoiding said tax.
  14. Great post. Additionally, I've been very frustrated by the fact that many progressives (worldwide) keep pushing solar/wind and opposing nuclear, despite the fact that in many locations (that already have a lot of nuclear or hydroelectric on the grid), the net effect of solar/wind is to cause emissions to go up, because natural gas/coal are needed to deal with unstable the output is from wind/solar. Also, wind and solar are far too expensive to replace fossil fuels right now (in part because of lack of reliability), and that won't change in the foreseeable future. I'm not saying the technology won't ever be cheap enough, but we don't have time to wait. I can confirm we can't hold out hope for a carbon emission reversal process. The only carbon emission reversal process out there that is even remotely viable right now is called photosynthesis, and there are fundamental thermodynamic reasons why at best we might be able to match (but not exceed) its efficiency. All the bullshit out there about carbon capture is essentially fossil fuel companies funding research to make it appear like it might be possible. So far the proposed (long-term) capture schemes would essentially be even more expensive than just not emitting the carbon dioxide in the first place, and that's not likely to change.
  15. Coco really resonated for me and my Chinese-Canadian friends. One of them turned to me and said "I'm sorry, I think this is my new favourite" [CGI animated film over Zootopia], and I was like "no apology needed" (through lots of tears). Obviously some the fine cultural details are different but the broad strokes about the importance of family really resonated with us. And it's a hard thing to explain, but I was really happy to see it explode in China. My mother's family left in the 1950s, and since then China has changed a lot too, with the Cultural Revolution and all of that. But somehow I felt like I could understand exactly why Coco did so well there. Coco is easily my favourite Pixar of the decade, and probably overall but I'd have to give WALL-E a rewatch because it's been a while.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.