Sting of Climate Risk: in Tails At the model level, these are not tails. The most "mean"-spirited model ought to be modeling the harms of the increase in the average number of mega wildfires, category 7 hurricanes, and 10,000 year droughts. If not, please re-estimate the model and give us a revised estimate of the optimal trajectory for the world tax on net CO2 emissions/CO2 concertation. [Could we call it the "natural" concentration? :)]
The Democrats' ads designed to "backfire" and help MAGA candidates aren't dishonest or unethical. However, they do improve the odds that the MAGA candidate is nominated and elected, albeit also improving the odds for the Democratic nominee. Democrats may, of course, do that. They want to win, after all. That said, such an approach puts the lie to the idea that Democrats *really* think the MAGA movement is an existential threat to Democracy. The only rational response to what is truly an existential threat is, first and foremost, to limit its likelihood.
This paragraph needs an AI bot rewrite :-) "But what happens when the network allows people who wish to be bad actors the present you with a broad spectrum of games? What happens when the government when your employer decides that it wants to use these tools, and he was these tools not for your good or in some win-win scenario but for its good and your detriment?"
Could someone clarify what "activation policies" mean in this context?
Sting of Climate Risk: in Tails At the model level, these are not tails. The most "mean"-spirited model ought to be modeling the harms of the increase in the average number of mega wildfires, category 7 hurricanes, and 10,000 year droughts. If not, please re-estimate the model and give us a revised estimate of the optimal trajectory for the world tax on net CO2 emissions/CO2 concertation. [Could we call it the "natural" concentration? :)]
The Democrats' ads designed to "backfire" and help MAGA candidates aren't dishonest or unethical. However, they do improve the odds that the MAGA candidate is nominated and elected, albeit also improving the odds for the Democratic nominee. Democrats may, of course, do that. They want to win, after all. That said, such an approach puts the lie to the idea that Democrats *really* think the MAGA movement is an existential threat to Democracy. The only rational response to what is truly an existential threat is, first and foremost, to limit its likelihood.
This paragraph needs an AI bot rewrite :-) "But what happens when the network allows people who wish to be bad actors the present you with a broad spectrum of games? What happens when the government when your employer decides that it wants to use these tools, and he was these tools not for your good or in some win-win scenario but for its good and your detriment?"