Well, anchoring works even when totally unreasonable. Never let the employer say the first number.

Another example of how the anchoring bias can influence monetary decisions is within salary negotiations. If you are negotiating a salary and your boss begins with an initial salary that is low after negotiating, you might be more likely to accept a lower salary than you would have if your boss had begun with a higher initial salary.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-anchoring-bias.html

I’ve lied, successfully, in salary negotiations. I’m also an ex hiring manager fwiw :)

Never answer such a question honestly.

Threat modelling for a possible future is different from threat modelling for today.

The Netherlands kept good records of which religion a person belonged to in the 1930s, to be able to swiftly fulfil any possible religious requirements on burial services. A nice service.

The nazis thought so too, a few years later.

No, I didn’t say that. Check who you’re quoting.

Yes, as you quoted, forest (mis-)management is a bigger factor than climate change.

Now check the claims made in what we’re discussing.

Did you read the paper?

(Links a relevant paper in Nature from 2024 - gets downvoted. “Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.”)

for those that need it spelled out: if you downvote actual science relevant to the topic you are “anti-science”

… but if they’re caused by something else then? Not everything is due to climate change. In this case there’s plenty of science done on how our forest management causes these extreme fires.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46702-0