You... I like you.

You'd really have liked it if I started talking about how the winters in Ontario, CA are much more pleasant than the ones in Ontario, CA.

Recreation just switches to an early morning or post-sundown schedule.

Ah, right. I hadn't considered that. It's interesting that the places with the most brutal heat are the ones with a relatively early sunset. In 2023 Oslo hit 32 degrees, not that hot by international standards, but combine that with the fact it happened on June 15th and the sun never fully sets at that time of year, and it's hard to find relief.

I usually still get 3-4 hours of sports activities on a saturday or sunday.

Do you live somewhere where the mid-day heat is 35+C? 40+C? To me, those are the only ones where it's truly brutal and I might prefer long, harsh winters. OTOH, human culture hasn't really found a great way to deal with brutally cold winters. There are winter solstice celebrations, but no adjustment of the schedule of life to avoid the worst of the cold. But, in places with really hot summers there's often a tradition of mid-day naps, and I could really get on board with that lifestyle.

The Tragedy of the Commons was popularized by a man who was anti-immigrant and pro-eugenics, and it's not good science. The good science on it was done by Elinor Ostrom who won a Nobel-ish prize for fieldwork showing that various societies around the world had solved the issues of the governance of commons.

The thing is, Ostrom didn't disprove it as a concept. She just proved that with the right norms and rules in place it doesn't inevitably lead to collapse. IMO it's not about capitalism or communism, it's about population. A small number of people who all know each-other can negotiate an arrangement that everyone can agree to. But, once you have thousands or millions of people, and each user of the commons knows almost none of the other users, it's different. At that point you need a government to set rules, and law enforcement to enforce those rules. That, of course, fails when the commons is something like the world's atmosphere and there's no worldwide government that can set and enforce rules.

Yeah, exactly. Winters in LA or LA might be different. But, winters in places with months and months of snow are awful. You can't do much outside because it's too cold. You can't have your windows open to get some fresh air because it's too cold. You can dress properly to do outdoor activities, but it often requires so many layers that it's really uncomfortable. Plus, you can't have any gaps. Your neck, wrists, ankles are often places where the cold can get in, or worse they can get wet and being cold and wet is awful.

In addition, the world is just miserable in winter. There's almost nothing alive outside other than other humans. No grass, many trees lose all their leaves, birds migrate away, everything is shades of grey or brown. Christmas can be fun, and it's no coincidence that it's celebrated almost exactly on the darkest day of the year. That's when we need a lot of pretty lights and cheer. But, Christmas is just the beginning of winter. What follows is months of gloomy grey cold.

And, while there are outdoor winter sports, you need special footwear for all of them because of the snow and ice. You can't even walk across a field or a park without extra effort because of all the snow. Even key winter sports like skating or hockey, if played outside, require that you at a minimum spend a lot of time shovelling all the snow off the ice surface. For a good experience you also have to flood and smooth the ice periodically. So, it's a lot of work.

Having said all that, if I had to choose between -30 and +40, I'd probably choose -30, because at least you can put on appropriate gear for that and spend some time outside doing something fun. It may be dark and it may be grey, but it's possible to dress for the weather. When it's too hot, you really can't spend any time outside, without risking your life, and it certainly isn't possible to do anything active. But if the choice is between -30 and +30, give me the +30 any day.

So, like Monopoly? A game originally designed to teach people that monopolies are bad, and pretty frustrating as a result?

Theodore Loblaw

Triopoly.

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.

Now you're lying about what I'm saying? Your standard for "lying" is that someone says something untrue and it's hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you're a liar.

Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying

And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.

Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I

Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.

Your bias is so obvious

My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.

You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.

So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.