Yes but 2000 was not.

Yes, but most people ignored it and celebrated the new millennium at the end of 1999 and beginning of 2000 anyway.

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium#Debate_over_millennium_celebrations

It's quite interesting. For example Fidel Castro made sure that Cuba celebrated correctly at the end of year 2000. And the U.S. Naval Observatory, official timekeeper for the country, held a party for the new milennium then too.

2000 was the last year of the second millennium and also the first year of the 00s. 2001 was the first year of the third millennium and the second year of the 00s.

Apparently yeah. In fact, it's actually easy to tell which years are in the 2nd millenium just by knowing its final year.

But people chose to celebrate the new millenium in 2000 because it's much more fun to have every single digit in a calendar year change than having only one digit change and calling it "a new millenium". Also, January 1, 2000 looks and feels so much cooler in my opinion, unless you write it in the dd/mm/yy format (mm/dd/yy wouldn't make much of a difference), in which case 01/01/01 has that nice satisfying feeling of all variables being the same value.

Doesn't look that way to me, given that the change has been pretty smooth and shows up on specific regions and adjusting for outliers and inflation (and matches the rise in median income).

More importantly, it's not incompatible with global inequality on the rise. Different stats measure different things.

Renewable energy beating expectations is the opposite of greenwashing, it specifically compares actual generated renewable energy against previous projections. If you want to poke holes into it for the sake of... denying anything good has ever happened, I guess? you should instead point out at how disproportionately that growth is driven by China.

And again, that's perfectly compatible with CO2 emissions going up. Different stats, different things.

but I'd wager that it was mostly because the really poor country got a bit better off.

That's what happened. The bimodal world income distribution has become unimodal as the working class of East Asia has seen a lot of improvement. Inequality in the first world went up since a lot of working class jobs left their countries while the wealthy were able to get richer.

Congratulations! Same here!

We could be driving electric cars and having solar panels everywhere.

We could be having the fastest wifi network.

We could have high speed trains.

Medical advances as well. I don't even want to go into the vaccine territory.

All of those things were considered problematic by the old guard, who conservatives supported. One side continues to protect the yacht owning class. Conservatives would still be fighting marijuana if the rest of the population didn't tell them to fuck off.

And if you think this is all wishy-washy speculation, get the fuck out of America for a minute and look around the rest of the world. American cities are no where near other international cities in terms of living, quality, tech, support. You have to be dumb as fuck to not recognize how often Conservatives vote against tech initiatives to line their own pockets.

Ehh looking at semi conductor & solar panel production I see what this persons saying. "Losing 50 years of tech progress" isn't quite accurate definitely, however the US has decayed its tech lead compared to the space race era, for example.

The thing about losing progress is you can’t know where you would be if priorities were different.

If the same amount of passion and resources was poured into the space program for the last 50 years as it was during the moon landing we would certainly be much further ahead, but no one would be able to tell you where would we be.

How do expect someone to describe something that hasn’t been invented yet?