You’re right that they ignore the science and the facts, that’s why they’re holding the positions they hold (climate change denialism, prohibition of abortion and gender reassignment, austerity policy, etc.) The problem IMO isn’t so much with the individuals as it is with the propaganda apparatus. It’s clear that people can be indoctrinated into such things, and much worse actually (see nazism), so instead of focusing on whether the individuals are arguing from bad faith or not, I’d rather blame the propaganda apparatus that turns them into ghoul, and not just blame it but put the focus onto it.

My code are the lamps, the car is the internet code

Milei managed to improve on the deficit a lot! Turns out all you needed to do is to put 3/4 of your country in poverty and destroy 3.4% of GDP in a year! And you’ll solve inflation as well, prices can’t rise if people don’t have money to buy things!!

Deficit is a good thing for the most part. It literally means by definition the government is putting more money into the economy than it’s extracting, which increases the capacity of families and businesses to save and to spend. Surplus means, by definition, that it’s collecting more money from the economy than it’s reinvesting into it, which literally, by definition, makes people poorer.

The problem isn’t with deficit itself, public expenditure is cool, the problem is where it’s spent. We want fewer corporate bailouts and fewer corruption schemes, and more investment in education, healthcare and pensions.

As a guy who’s absolutely in the far-left camp, and at risk of being exactly what the post is complaining about, I’m sorry but you’re being tribalist and delusional. Many conservatives try and argue from what they consider “good faith”, it’s just that their moral compass has been destroyed by conservative propaganda. Many conservatives actually believe that unborns have souls and are people, and that abortion is murder, even if it’s a clearly wrong moral position. Many conservatives do believe that immigration is hurting their countries and they’re making their country a better place by opposing it. Many do believe that reducing labour regulations will end up boosting the economy for the benefit of everyone. The fact that they’re demonstrably wrong in most of it, doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily arguing from bad faith.

Little nitpick to you:

Nyquist will ensure that you preserve artifacts that indicate primary frequency(ies) of interest, but you’ll lose nuance for signal analysis.

When we’re analyzing a signal more deeply we tend to use something like 40x expected max signal frequency, it’ll give you a much better look at the signal of interest.

This is because your signal of interest, unless purely sinusoidal, has higher frequency features such as harmonics, so if you sample at Nyquist you’d lose all of that. Nyquist theorem still stands, it’s just you wanna look at higher frequency than you realize because you wanna see higher frequency components of your signal.

You can absolutely reduce coal and gas without batteries. Hydro is a thing, nuclear also exists. Maybe it’s cheaper and more environmentally-friendly to disconnect some solar and some wind from the grid during excess peak production and keep the nuclear running, than having huge storage? Also you’re forgetting about the possibility for instant demand response, imagine things like AC units in summer or heaters in winter, where they could be turned on automatically during peak production to keep your house comfier for no cost.

I take it you disagree with the sanctions to Russia as well?

If by “sponsor” we include “perpetrator”

It’s cool to be an anti-authoritarian communist. It’s not cool to spend half of your breathing time to talking shit about past leftist projects which were by all metrics less evil than capitalist ones.

Because anti-communists will bicker about every single thing they’ve been taught not to like about communism and remain quiet in terms of criticism to the current system