Yes. And yet staring at twenty years of them reporting the weather would not at all improve my understanding of global warming. Especially if that observation was stretched out over twenty years.

Accurately recorded and identified specific observations are necessary for scientific progress, but their mere collection is not sufficient for understanding.

Science requires us to speculate, predict, test, and refine. And if all we do is observe without even having made a prediction, we’re not even testing.

If understanding was caused by direct observation we wouldnt have local weather-persons who doubt global warming.

Did the growth outpace inflation under Biden?. The only thing I found in your link was a graph that ends with Biden’s first year that showed flat funding for ICE, plus some assertions about its total decades-long growth.

You’re absolutely right that ICE should be replaced with a few hundred bureaucratic functionaries to stamp passports. But I don’t think we get there without clear partisan blame.

why would Biden increase the ICE budget

The null hypothesis here would be with “inflation”, and simpler explanations than yours would be “because Trump cut the funds” and “COVID lockdowns”

You may be right, but if you want anyone to accept your theory you need to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the simple answers.

Stackexchange sites aren’t intended as forums, they’re supposed to be “places to find answers to questions”.

The more you get away from stack overflow itself the worse they get, though, because anything beyond “how can I fix this tech problem” doesn’t necessarily have an answer at all, much less a single best one

The original food pyramid was designed when starvation was a major concern, and so makes sense in that context.

The “my plate” was a fair adjustment that refocused on quality of food in a world of plenty.

I have no idea what a “upside down pyramid” is supposed to be.

“if we just made this opt-in” has become the bleakest nonsense in IT.

Be it LLMs or ads or “free” albums, tech companies just can’t accept that “make me say yes” should always be the default.

“OMG, they believe it when they say gender is just a performance and they will respect reported identity no matter how badly you pass!”

Was he expecting to be mocked like a white man in blackface? Only something like 25% of trans women are on HRT; the rest make do with clothing and makeup and being deeply closeted.

If you want to lie that’s on you. We’re just accountable for our own actions, and it’d be better to believe a thousand transphobic tourists than misgender one t-folk stepping out for the first time.

A mere casual endorsement is not an appeal to authority. If you don’t like the guy that’s fine, but it’s not a logical fallacy to, for example, describe a late night comedian as “a kinda funny guy.”. (A logical fallacy would require that someone assume Krugman is RIGHT because of his record, not that he’s merely worth reading )

How is dismissing someone because of where they worked NOT an ad hominem attack?

How is splitting hairs over which awards given by the swedish government are and aren’t “nobel prizes” NOT a distinction without a difference?

You didnt attack any of his actual credentials, though. You just said that he should be dismissed because he wrote for a particular newspaper and the award he was given by the Swiss government was not one of the awards given by the Swiss government funded by the gift of a 19th century arms merchant.

If you want to rebut my statement that Krugman “has a pretty good track record”, please do so! But you didn’t, and haven’t, and instead asserted your own biases as fact.

Which is obviously your right to do but, again, is a really weird response to a “who is this guy” post.

An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to “who is this guy”.

Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a “Krugman sucks and you shouldn’t listen to him” link you’d like to share?)

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

And while I certainly don’t want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it’s worth noting that legally speaking they’re both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It’s not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.