jas007

There's a ring of truth to all of that, but on the whole, they'e gross generalizations. While it's true that many houses built in the USA are flimsy and not built so well, everyone knows that. Why people buy them and why banks loan money on them is beyond me. In any event, that's not the whole story. Smart investors also know that build quality can vary tremendously, and location, location, location is often the most important factor to consider. A well built home in a prime location is as good as gold. I have friends who used to be builders. One would build houses one at a time, the other guy and his partner were into building entire subdivisions. The one house at a time guy built very high quality houses, the other guys put up hundreds of houses using the cheapest materials they could find. People would buy them anyway. In an area I used live, there was a house down the block that was constructed over a period of about two years. People there every day, working on that house. I'm not sure what it ultimately cost, but it must have been millions. Location, location, location. Of course, it's easy enough to find absolute junk houses in what are prime locations. People buy them for a small fortune, tear them down, and built something nice.

I assume you understand how photosynthesis works? CO2 is plant food, of a sort. Trees and other green plants take in CO2 and excrete Oxygen in sunlight. Please explain how the CO2 takeup by trees would necessarily have to match the rate we are generating CO2 from fossil fuels? Where is it written that there would have to be a match? In any event, planting more trees would help, right? And it might help if the Brazilian rain forest wasn't be destroyed at a huge rate. To be sure, we may be creating more CO2 than the plants can absorb. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But it's not just human activity. Volcanos have caused big problems in the past. Or, certain types of bacteria in the ocean. There's always an ebb and flow. Wasn't there a time in history where the earth's atmosphere contained too much oxygen? And that resulted in a cooling period, as methane, a green house gas, was displaced. This all took place hundreds of millions years ago at a time when there were no humans around to burn fossil fuels. . It's interesting. Look it up. Anyway, I contend that, whatever the small variation in global warming currently being experienced, the larger trend is the more significant of the two.

Climate change may be real, but there's some question as to whether the changes we're now seeing are just small blips in the grand scheme of things, or significant. Over millions and millions of yers, the earth's climate has fluctuated. This article is interesting and contains a long term chart of the earth's temperature going back millions of years. From the looks of it, we may be entering another ice age. Of course, we'll ll be long gone by the time anyone finds out. Maybe we could use more CO2, not less. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2024/09/22/new-study-shows-485-million-years-of-earths-temperature/

The fires usually start in the brush, not in the forest canopy. The brush should be periodically cleared, and the county knows it, the city knows it, and the state knows. And yet those governing bodies seemed to have other priorities. As for the fire hydrants? Don't you think some of those houses might have been saved if the fire hydrants worked? Finally, do you know about California Proposition 1, I think, that was passed by the voters in 2014 and which provided that the state spend billions of dollars on new reservoirs and water infrastructure? And yet here we are, 10 years later, and do you know how many new reservoirs have been built? ZERO. None. What happened to the money? As for climate change and insurance companies? In July, State Farm cancelled the homeowners insurance policies in many of the affected areas. Climate change? I hardly think so. That's just another Deep State boogeyman used as a tactic to induce fear and government control. Rather, the insurance companies knew full well that for every season the hillside maintenance was neglected, the risk of fire increased astronomically. California law apparently prohibits or makes it difficult to increase premiums on homeowners insurance, and so to protect themselves, the insurance companies just cancelled the policies. And finally, I'm sure the people living in those areas pay some of the highest property taxes. For all that money, don't you think it's reasonable for them to assume that in return they would receive competent protection against a known risk? These types of fires happen all the time. The best that can be done is to try to manage the risk. It's not rocket science. Everyone assumes that the government will provide all the basic services. That's their function. That's their job. That's what people pay for. When you call 911, you assume the cops will come in short order. When you call for an ambulance, you assume an ambulance will arrive, sirens blaring. If you call to report a fire, you assume the fire department can and will handle it. Or what about air traffic control or licensed pilots? Don't you assume that, when you fly somewhere, the pilot is competent? That the air traffic control people know what they're doing? The people running the show weren't doing their job.

You start out by saying that you doubt that the people who lost their homes "will regard themselves as part of an ecosystem," and then a few paragraphs later you admit "we are part of an ecosystem." That doesn't make much sense. Whether the people who lost homes consider themselves part of an ecosystem, that's where they live. In the ecosystem. Fires go with the territory, especially when that territory has been neglected and mismanaged. As for the firefighters and the fire? They say there was no water for the hydrants. Instead of filling reservoirs with water, they allowed it to drain away into the ocean to "save the environment" for some fish or whatever. And the city apparently made little effort lately to actively manage the brush. The mayor's focus was DEI, and, to add insult to injury, she had previously cut the budget for the fire department. So call it what you want, I call it incompetence and neglect.

II looked into it a little and it seems as though Tesla will be manufacturing these TVs in their own factories, as they currently have excess capacity. So it's not going to be some rebranded product obtained elsewhere. Anyway, if Must wants to do something, he'll find a way. In any event, why all the hostility towards Tesla and Musk? What makes you think X spreads "his propaganda"? What are you mad about? That he came along and provided a platform for free speech?

I've seen a few of those site. No doubt, it's just people trying to make money. "Join our members section and get special content."

I have some Apple IPads, and I'm pretty sure I can use the Safari browser on any website I chose. Or, I can use the app, although it may depend on the website itself, some which seem to redirect to the mobile version even though I initially log onto the site with the Safari browser.

Climate change? Hardly. In case you aren't aware, forests periodically burn. And in areas like Southern California, which were largely uninhabitable deserts before the Colorado River was tamed and aqueducts installed, the vegetation there also burns, periodically. It's all part of the ecological process. Part of a healthy ecosystem. The process has been going on for millions and millions of years, long before humans arrived on the scene. And in case you've never lived in Southern California, the place can often go months and months without any kind or rain. Neglect the vegetation and overgrown brush, and it's. just a matter of time. There will be fires. And those fires can be especially dangerous this time of year, when Santa Ana winds are common. So, who's to blame? Fires will occur, periodically, but they can perhaps be contained, delayed, or managed with proper management. Was that done here? I don't think so.

One time, when I lived just north of San Diego, there was a fire spreading on the other side of I-5, headed my way. Fortunately, they got it under control. Some people were really scared, though. I remember seeing a lady at the local convenience store/gas station, pulling a trailer behind her car. Her horses were in it and her kids were in the car. That's all she could do. Get out of the way.

Sure. The rules based international order exists. It's the foundation of diplomacy and it works so long as everyone is playing the same game. It makes for predictability. But don't think for a minute that the world always works that way. The United Nations was founded by way of a treaty, and how is that working? Like I said, it's nice to pretend that countries will play by the rules, but that doesn't always happen, especially when a nation perceives its very existence depends on acting outside international law, Unfortunately, it happens all the time. That's reality. Trump knows that, but his hyperbole should probably be timed down. It can be dangerous.

Trump is just being Trump. He says whatever is on his mind. However, that doesn't necessarily mean most of it should be taken literally. He just talks. It's hyperbole. That's his character. And don't forget the history of U.S. foreign policy lately. Warmongers from both parties, Neocons, American exceptionalism, causing trouble around the world to effect regime change, acting outside international law when it's deemed to be "necessary." There seems to be one set of rules for America, and another set of rules for the rest of the world. And, judging by Trump's cabinet picks, I don't see much in the way of change ahead in the foreign policy arena, unfortunately, other than a recognition that the war in Ukraine is silly, unnecessary, and never should have happened. That will end with a deal and that's that. Trump is just saying out loud how things really work, Smart or not, it's hard to deny history.

Too complex? Different, perhaps, but not necessarily too complex. Not that anyone has to worry about understanding everything and how it all fits together. No one has ever done that and no one will. The only real challenge is navigating change, if that's what you want to do. Some people don't need to. Some people just don't care. They're comfortable in their own world. They have everything they need. One time I tried to show my father how to use a computer, but he just didn't care. He didn't need to use it and he had no clue. But he was fine. He was always doing something and he was happy. My grandfather was more curious about technology, but for him, that was a mixed blessing. Give hime a new gadget and the next thing you know, he'd be trying to take it apart to see how it worked. I'm pretty sure wouldn't have believed the complexity of an integrated circuit. And he would never have used a credit card or an ATM. When he had business to transact, he went to the bank. When he wanted to buy some stock, he went to the broker's office and did it in person. Anyway, he was happy and was always doing something.

Apparently, the CIA is into all sorts of weird experiments. Years ago, I used to date a girl whose father worked at the CIA in Virginia. She used to tell me stories about "remote viewing." I never took her seriously, as she was always taking about some weird stuff. Anyway, as it turns out, there really was research into remote viewing, which has now been discontinued and declassified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to argue. For all I know, Tesla will be making the TVs. It all sounds weird to me, but I'm not ready to call it all a marketing ploy. Time will tell. Mostly, it's nothing I worry about too much.

The TVs they're supposedly coming out with later this year. They probably won't ship to Thailand, though, or if they do they won't be so cheap.

And what's wrong with a great product, if you can get it? I'm not holding my breath, as a lot of the TVs currently on the market are more than I need, and they don't cost too much. I'm in a rented condo, and the TV that's here is OK, but a little small. I like to watch movies. If I move into a bigger place with some room, I'm going to buy something bigger. 85" or so. Believe it or not, those don't have to cost too much and the picture looks great to me.

So far, I've found this. https://elonbuzz.com/teslas-2025-smart-tv-revealed-by-elon-musk-features-and-details/

I think there's webpage with the specs. I'll try to find it.

Yep. I was curious, so I just looked. And I found out I had downloaded it a long time ago. It isn't all that interesting and isn't really the same as X. It seems slow. I guess that's why I forgot about it.

From what I saw, it'll be Starlink capable and some of the specs will be unmatched. What excited me was how inexpensive they will be. As for "installing" Twitter? Has there ever been an app for Twitter? That's all Musk really needs to do if he just wants to "spread his propaganda." Make an X app for download on Apple TV and for smart TVs. No need to make televisions.

Well, Trump seems to think otherwise. Did you watch his Mar Lago news conference? As for the so-called World Stage? That seems to be changing faster than anyone ever imagined at this point. One after another, Leftist leaders are on the way out, with their Globalist agendas in tatters. Give it six months and let's see what happens.

So long as I can walk down the sidewalk without tripping on holes and uneven pavement, I'm happy.

Yep, the raw totals were close. But that's not what matters. What matters is the electoral college vote. You surely know how that works. To elect a Democrat, enough votes would have to be flipped in certain Red states to change the outcomes there. For all we know, a white, male, Democratic candidate with kids would have changed people's votes mainly in California and New York, but not in one swing state. The original question seems to assume that some people who voted for Trump didn't vote for Harris only because they were racist, misogynist, and because she didn't have any kids. I don't think so. They didn't vote for Harris because the "Democrats" were too extreme. Their agenda was crazy. Somewhere online, there 's a video floating around made by a so-called political science "expert" woman, who recorded it after going out to buy a bottle of champagne to celebrate a Harris "victory." She was of the opinion that Harris would win because, in her mind, the only real issue for women was women's "reproductive rights," and that issue alone would put Harris over the top. After Harris lost, she recorded another video explaining why she was wrong. Those are fun to watch.

You're assuming that those who might have voted differently would be distributed is such a manner as to affect the outcome of states that might have been flipped in favor of Harris as a result. The popular vote doesn't matter. Flipping certain Red States might have mattered, but I'm not sure you can make that assumption.