Switzerland has 26 cantons, each with its own constitution, tax rates, and laws, and the result is one of the wealthiest, most stable countries on earth. That is not a coincidence.
You want to understand why Swiss GDP per capita sits around $92,000 while the EU average hovers near $37,000? Start here. Cantons compete for residents and businesses the same way firms compete for customers. Zug kept its corporate tax rate at roughly 11.9%, attracted commodity traders and crypto firms, and watched its population and tax revenues grow. Cantons that taxed aggressively lost mobile capital and productive citizens to neighbors with lighter burdens. This is Tiebout competition working in real life, not a textbook diagram.
The federal government in Bern handles defense, monetary policy, and some foreign affairs. Everything else defaults downward. Cantons set income taxes. Communes set property levies. Citizens in Appenzell Innerrhoden voted on local laws by a show of hands in the Landsgemeinde, an open-air assembly, until 1990 for most matters. The feedback loop between decision-makers and the people paying for those decisions stays tight. That tightness disciplines spending in ways no central auditor ever will.
Free market thinkers have stressed this for generations: political units must be small enough that exit is credible. When the cost of leaving a bad jurisdiction drops, politicians face real consequences for bad policy. Switzerland kept that cost low by design. A business or family in Basel-Stadt dissatisfied with cantonal policy drives forty minutes to Baselland. No visa. No language barrier. No bureaucratic labyrinth. Just a move.
The EU spent decades building the opposite architecture, consolidating regulatory power in Brussels and eliminating the jurisdictional diversity that forces governments to stay honest. Switzerland refused to join. Its per-capita wealth, its low public debt, and its functional civil society arrived because the Swiss preserved the one institutional feature every centralized state destroys first: the credible right to leave.
Mac search has been broken for 2 years, and nobody at Apple seems to care.
- I open spotlight search
- Type "calc"
- Calculator appears
- I hit return
But in the 0.2 seconds before I hit return, it swaps to a random file with the word "calc" in it somewhere. And I open a file I didn't want.
This happens to me every single day.
Very unbecoming of a $5T company whose customers are still obsessed with its products.
@martinmbauer@EricsElectrons Well, you wouldnโt force novel and risky contraceptive methods on a pregnant woman to avoid further pregnancy either. Thatโs pretty much where the analogy breaks down though because analogies arenโt the real thing, which you know.
@dieworkwear A little bit of doubt concerning oneโs perfection and humility regarding oneโs shortcomings never hurt the drive for self-improvement. Expecting the world at large to be your morale booster is delusional.
@dieworkwear The outer self is a reflection of the inner self to some degree. Not everyone is required to admire your ephemeral beauty. Find those who do and donโt burden the rest of us with your unsolicited demand for validation.
@NadiaFerreira85 Outsource the management too, because we donโt seem to have competency anywhere. When you donโt appoint technocrats (or even dedicated problem solvers) but cadres, you will
become outsourced to the hilt and double(at least) pay for everything.
๐ฟ๐ฆ Is this an admission of guilt? So the SG of the ANC knows that ANC Mayors have been stealing the people's money? So, when is he laying charges against his criminals?
My position on climate change in a nutshell:
1โฃ ๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ?
โ Yes, but it has been warming since at least 1750. Only since ~1950 or so has there been any potentially significant anthropogenic influence. How can anyone on the alarmist side explain the previous 200 years? What caused the initial warming? What caused the warming between 1910 and 1945, which is ~40% of post-1850 warming, but only ~10% of emissions? So, if natural variability hasn't contributed to any warming since 1850 (which is assumed in the climate models), then you are ignoring that.
2โฃ ๐๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง-๐ฆ๐๐๐?
โ I think at least ๐ ๐๐๐ of it has been. I don't know how much exactly because it cannot be measured. Perhaps 25% or 50%. Maybe 75%? Carbon dioxide (COโ) is in fact a โgreenhouse gasโ (GHG). All else being equal, adding more of it to the atmosphere should cause at least some warming; that is, ~1ยฐC (~1.8ยฐF) per doubling of its concentration, plus any positive feedbacks that act to amplify it (the Planck feedback, which makes the sum of feedbacks net negative, is already accounted for in the RF2xCO2 calculation).
In theory, this explanation makes sense. It's radiative transfer physics. Some of it is basic math, some of it is more complicated, but it is well-understood. But a challenge in actually attributing GHG emissions to all recent warming is that the natural energy flows in and out of the Earth's climate system cannot be measured with the accuracy and precision needed to ascribe all recent warming to GHGs. The uncertainty on the TOA flux is about 5-10 W/mยฒ, which is much larger than the estimated Earth energy imbalance (EEI) allegedly from COโ on the order of 0.8โ1.2 W/mยฒ. What's more, the climate models are artificially tuned such that there can be no natural causes of warming, COโ is added, then it's declared that COโ is the only cause of global warming since 1850.
3โฃ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐?
โ I think that urban sprawl and land use have been significant contributors to local + regional warming trends. Theoretically, this could explain part or even most of the warming globally outside the north polar region, which is mostly rural. We are investigating this in more detail because we are convinced that urban influences have not entirely been removed from the temperature record.
4โฃ ๐๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐?
โ I don't think so. Alarmists always bring up the โrate of changeโ argument in threads, but the idea that the recent warming spike is unprecedented in the last few thousand years is based on Michael Mann's infamous tree ring-based โHockey Stickโ graph from MBH (1998, 1999) and the alleged independent look-a-like โverificationsโ that followed (e.g., PAGES2K). But the attempts to verify it with different proxies all used the same (or a similar) methods that will generate hockey stick-shaped graphs from red noise. The shape of the graphs are largely a statistical artifact, not an accurate representation of global climate variability over the last 2,000 years. I tested this myself using random data. Ex-post correlation screening always produces a hockey stick shape.
5โฃ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐?
โ Not really. There have been no increases in floods, droughts, thunderstorms + tornadoes + hailstorms, tropical cyclones, winter storms, or wildfires that can be attributed to GHG emissions at a global scale.
There are definitely regional increases and decreases in some of these event types that are within the bounds of natural variability. In the case of certain drought types (e.g., hydrological and ecological) and wildfires that have increased regionally, that is usually attributable to land use change + poor water resource management and poor forest management, respectively. Evidence that GHG forcing has led to an increase in said events is, in my assessment, weak.
You can maybe argue an increase in heatwaves and heavy rainfall since 1950 globally, but the increase in heavy rainfall occurred suddenly around 1990, which is largely an artifact of the change to automation and more efficient rain gauges. There is also a lot of data (usually legitimate extreme Tmax and precipitation values) that get falsely marked as โmissingโ in the digitized data, which means they get missed in every analysis published in journals and on databases. We are finding that when you look at the original paper forms, most โmissingโ data aren't actually missing and so we have to go in and correct the records. This is a major problem in the U.S. (in fact, filling all of the missing 20th century rainfall data in Texas in turns an increase in the top 1% of heavy rainfall events per station to a slight negative trend since 1900).
I assume this problem exists outside the U.S., but at this point in time, I can't be too sure. I haven't looked into it yet.
6โฃ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ โ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฌโ ๐จ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง-๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ?
โ No, not really.
All global warming, natural or man-made, will result in higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and land heating up faster than water (and by extension, the Northern Hemisphere warming faster than the Southern). So, while these changes would be consistent with GHG forcing, it's also consistent with changes in solar activity, cloud cover changes, etc.
The cooling in the stratosphere since the late 1970s is probably due to COโ. So, at least some of the warming in the troposphere since then is due to COโ. But not all of it can be attributed to COโ necessarily because the physics of heat transfer in the troposphere are far more complex than that of the upper atmosphere where radiation is king and the physics are simpler. In the troposphere, you have convection and precipitation processes (latent heating) that are highly uncertain and these processes can change naturally. The fluxes on these are larger than the relatively small EEI estimated by CERES instrumentation and assumed to be due to COโ.
7โฃ ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ?
โ As far as I can tell, no. The quality of life on Earth has never been better than it is today, and it is only projected to improve through 2100 by almost every measurable metric. We can adapt to whatever climate changes there are just like we always have. But just like with any climate change that has ever occurred, natural or man-made, there will be pros and cons to it depending on where you live.
I am what you call a โlukewarmer.โ
I do not deny that there is anthropogenic influence on the climate system, but I'm also not running around like a hysterical chicken either.
There are far more important environmental problems that need to be addressed that are within our control.
Yes @MbalulaFikile you daft fucking moron. The problem is now water because once again you fucked it up.
If you and your comrades had any comprehension of forward planning, infrastructure expansion and maintenance, and you were not a cohort of thieves, none of these challenges would have been impossible to overcome.
Your weak excuses are laughable. Your thievery and incompetence have been laid bare and you are reduced to a clown making word salads for a living.
@sentle22@destiny_ndlovu If you can do it cost effectively, you may play, if you can be undercut by others you should go. Government spending is just so disconnected from caring about inefficiency, because spending other peopleโs money and colluding for a kickback are lucrative and no one gets arrested.
Correctional Services Minister Pieter Groenewald says he stopped a bread tender where taxpayers were paying
R24.50 per loaf to a contractor who didn't even own a bakery. The contractor was subcontracting the bread for about R15 and pocketing around R1 million a month.
Groenewald launched a plan to make prisons self-sufficient by building internal bakeries. Now inmates bake their own bread for about R8 per loaf, and prisons are 97% self-sufficient.
@DrKnowItAll16@skdh If the community isnโt geared towards truth seeking but rather status games, the incentives donโt line up either. Universities arenโt seeking to be elite anymore, hence the โteachingโ
declines to match the aptitude, knocking effects follow.