rekabis

When the cost of disobeying a direct order during “wartime” is prison or even execution, most soldiers will obey.

Especially since most of the American military is deeply conservative and ChristoFascist in the first place.

And so his purge of bipartisan and democratic leaders of the military allows him to ensconce lackeys that won’t question or refuse orders to invade other countries, like Canada.

People keep on saying that America won’t invade other countries, like Panama or Canada. THIS IS WHY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.

The only copyright I would ever support is for a content creator to “own” a piece such that they can claim the exclusive rights to say “I created this”, and for them to directly profit off of that work so long as they were adequately servicing demand for that work.

So if a novelist kept their materials in print - or, at least, had a contract with a publishing house that would ensure that anyone could purchase a copy at any time - that novelist wouldn’t have their work return to the public domain until they died, or until a decade after initial publication, whichever happened last.

But any work could be “challenged” by having a separate individual or org put forth a request for a limited production run, in order to demonstrate any shortfall in supply. If that run doesn’t demonstrate shortfall (with the current producer keeping production unchanged), they would have to hand over all profits to the current rights holder. But if there is a shortfall, they can become an authorized second producer, capable of keeping a slice of the profits. And if no demand is being satisfied at all, the work can be returned to the public domain for anyone to satisfy market demand without restriction.

And note: any and all copyright could only be held by an individual, or by a group of individuals who were all directly involved with the creation of the work. Companies would be wholly ineligible for owning any copyright. And copyrights could not be pre-transferred by any workplace agreement… only post-creation agreements could be made on a per-creation basis, and would need to be ratified by an anticapitalist, bipartisan clearing institution. Creators could lease said creations to their employers, but would have extra protections against revenge actions by their employer.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

I know. It’s an exceedingly horrible path, but the alternatives are turning out to be immeasurably worse, and we are rapidly running out of non-catastrophic options.

I am in the northern hemisphere, in a city that is virtually 100% guaranteed to be nuked if such a conflict arises. It’s not an option I want to reach for unless all the other ones are even worse. But “much worse” is likely to occur, sooner rather than later.

Ironically, only unrestrained nuclear war could possibly save us now.

1. It would move untold gigatonnes of dust into the atmosphere, cutting down on solar radiation in the short term
2. it would destroy high-tech fossil fuel consumption and most human-caused CO2 production in the short to medium term
3. said dust would slowly fall out of the atmosphere over the next decade, most into the oceans, releasing phytoplankton from their limiting environmental factors (mainly a lack of iron)
4. even with reduced sunlight, phytoplankton populations would explode, sucking significant CO2 out of the atmosphere
5. an extended nuclear winter would produce thin ice sheets across most of the northern hemisphere, dramatically increasing the planet’s albedo once the atmosphere clears up, reflecting most incoming radiation back out and (hopefully) maintaining lower temperatures
6. lower temperatures planet-wide would produce a much wetter climate, with much more snowfall and more precipitation in arid areas, encouraging increased carbon sequestration by plants.
7. human populations would crash massively in the first year or three, but - especially in the southern hemisphere - would remain present in relative technological sophistication. We could conceivably stabilize in the very low billion level or high hundreds of millions, with the technological knowledge to rebuild a high-tech civilization without the extensive use of fossil fuels.

We're probably not heading into over 4.8 though. Probable outcomes are between 2.5 and 3.5 (both of which are horrific.)

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is badly out of date, and no longer in line with the evidence.

Spoiler alert: it’s much, much worse than that.

Except that,

1. We have already exceeded the “worst case scenario” path. We are quite literally in uncharted territory, as none of our climate models have been built for this scenario and we have no “prior art” to give any indications of what kind of climate changes might happen next.
2. On this path, +3℃ will be reached within the next decade and a bit - likely between 2035 and 2038.
3. At +3℃, lethally high wet bulb temperatures and chaotic weather will take out about 4 billion humans within a few short years. Chaotic weather itself will make industrialized agriculture impossible world-wide, as over 90% of all agriculture is shacked to rainfall. And too much is equally as devastating as not enough.
4. The collapse of the AMOC - with a “most likely due by” in the 2050s - will supercharge this climate chaos, causing weather patterns worldwide to whiplash for up to a decade as the planetary climate tries to find a “new normal”. At this point, pretty much any agriculture aside from hydroponics - and less than 3% of crops can be successfully worked hydroponically - will simply be unviable.

We are fucked. Right now, the best we can do is limit the wider environmental damage. Entire ecosystems will collapse, as changes are happening too fast for them to migrate towards the poles. The fastest prior example of climate change that we discovered happened almost 100,000× slower, so entire forests had the opportunity to migrate instead of perishing.

I am all for massive action. Not for humanity - I see zero chance of us surviving as any kind of a going concern into the 22nd century - but for the planetary ecosystem. We must give it the best possible chance for recovery, so that whatever comes after us has the best opportunity to flourish.

Trump has already been ignoring the rulings of judges. Successfully, I might add. And without any consequences.

This means that the rule of law is now over, and that the constitution is irrelevant and ultimately unenforceable.

This is always the game plan of fascists: to remove from power anyone in a high enough position who would obey legal processes, such that when true opposition occurs, there is no-one left who will enforce the law. Then they can move out into the open, pull down any part of the law or the legal system that they don’t like, and start doing the truly reprehensible stuff.

It’s why they objected to Obama filling that Supreme Court position that opened up (which he had full legal rights to re-fill), so that they could pack it with a crony that they could control, stacking the Supreme Court in their favour. And just look at how corrupt it has become.

Mark my words, shit is going to get really dark within the next six months to a year. Like, concentration camp dark.

Technically the Earth is not spherical… it’s an oblate spheroid.

How does this not flagrantly violate the First Amendment?

I mean, besides the fact that Trump has dismembered the rule of law and has rendered the constitution unenforceable and irrelevant - we should still be holding the government to account as much as possible.

Canada might need these sooner rather than later.

With the breakdown of democracy and the rule of law in America, the Constitution just became wholly unenforceable and therefore irrelevant. That means that Trump could make good on his fever dream of invading Canada.

And there are many Americans who would jump at the chance to obey his command to slaughter Canadians. With only 40M against America’s 334M - and 0.097M military personnel against America’s 2.1M - it would be absolutely no contest.

Our only way of making such a fascist act of aggression as painful as possible would be with asymmetrical warfare using tiny, hard-to-defeat drones that could act independently and strike without warning. Deploy 10k of these suckers onto a battlefield, and the only survivors would be those within sealed armour or flying at high altitude. Because even an A10 Warthog loitering low over the field can be taken out if it unexpectedly ingests a half-dozen of the explosive buggers.

Canadian phone on a Canadian carrier, freshly updated to iOS 18.3.1. Looks like the correct and proper name is still being used by Apple Maps.