upsidesinclude
While he may or may not be accurate in his assessment at this time, he manages to gloss over any number of historical factors that have brought us to this junction.
Continuing to invest in nuclear is a good idea. There is money to do so and yes, the military provides much of that. And they control an immense amount of fissile material. Wouldn't it be great if there was a future where that material, which has been mined at great cost, refined at immense cost and handled at astounding cost could be used to benefit the populace that have afforded it?
The huge arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world only has one way to make its exit. I'd rather we continued to work on an alternative.
The training parameters will be the databases of info scooped up and integrated into profiles of every person and their entire digital footprint, queriable and responsive to direct questioning
That's not opinion, that's their position.
This is pretty reasonable considering
It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.
Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.
Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
This is a hypothesis and one that seems poorly born considering quercetin is available over the counter as a supplement and in no way causes headaches.
It is however, amazing at bolstering the immune system
The initial point misses a fairly significant consideration though. A huge number of advancements are publicly funded. That public funding turns into private profit. People largely unaware of that fact, recently were made aware with the massive vaccine development spending that led to record shattering profits for pharma companies. To cite just one prominent example in the last few years.
Edit: shout out to text only
This alone is such a wildly unfounded statement. Maybe the author is a typical, academic soft body.
I couldn't really keep reading beyond this point as the author is comically uncritical of their own beliefs
Humans are wildly dangerous, vengeful, intelligent and resourceful.
Your take seems to narrow the application of AI chat down to customer service.
Taking a broader view, AI chat or really LLMs have a very wide range of applications. As discussed in the article, script and code producing AI is not meant to be "read" so much as utilized post generation.
Either way, the reality is that just like any other advancement, this will slowly start to become integral to many business networks and workflow models, all having no interface with the consumer. The current fascination is wearing thin for the unimaginative who've asked a few generic questions to ChatGPT and then failed to recognize any applications of that product in their own life.
All the better, but the more products built now means the more likely something is produced that niche markets are looking to buy.
Poor people will stand up and walk inland.
The rich will do anything they can to convince everyone else to pay for their property losses
Seperate news reports include claims that the company was "developing COVID19 tests" among other things. This could very well have been funded through pandemic relief grants.
The owners of the building claim no knowledge of the goings on there.
Clearly they were engaged in some nefarious work with extremely minimal safety protocol.
The 10% that do all your work for you?
I guess that's seems pretty shortsighted. When I go to work, I expect the asshole (that just watches me get shit done) to be decent company, worth a laugh or really willing to grab things I need.
If you can't bother to 'pretend' then I'm going to stop pretending for you too. I guess we'll see who gets to keep getting paid.
You know, have some decency.
I'd be glad to see more information as regards the conditions which lead to that conclusion
Adoption of greenspace and far more solar panels in Phoenix could significantly cut down on this phenomena.
People will sit and argue the carcinogenic potential and completely ignore they're discussing poison. As if cancer is the only factor that could be of concern.
Notice your comment is down at the far end of the pile, while above psuedointellectuals fiegn insight into FDA & WHO motivations.
Endocrine & hormone disrupting, toxic compounds, but wait for it, hasn't been studied yet -> "there's no evidence" of harmful effect -> food safe
EU already banned a whole host of additives the US public gladly gorges on because we want red drank
Also, everything is waves
The new claim is that population die off caused the Little Ice Age, thanks to disease and 'genocide'... 55 million out of roughly 500M.
If you buy that, you can't really deny the impact of the population increasing to 7.5B.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=900..late...
>you and I both know that I was referring to anthropomorphic climate change, which you are actively denying
I'm not denying anything about climate, I'm denying the severity of outcomes you claim. There is a major difference.
You should look into some data about natural disasters.
They cost more now. That's about it. Don't take some news infomercial segment as truth. Go read the statistics.
If someone makes a claim that something is "more severe" because the damage costs more to repair, then that is technically a factual statement. It doesn't further the position that the event was actually more severe than weather in the past.
The slight changes in weather you've experienced will not make your life shorter. You experience some discomfort because you aren't acclimated to warmer temperatures.
I'm claiming that the predictions of doom due to man made climate change are a farce. They are designed to get at you, emotionally.
It has worked.
The return to an ice age, even briefly (such as the Little Ice Age) would be truly catastrophic with today's population.
https://twitter.com/drkstrong/status/1675669797462310919?ref...
Yes it is and your anecdotes don't mean much. You are saying the winters are less severe. The growing season is longer and it is generally more habitable.
>people living through catastrophes which most likely would have been less severe if not for climate change.
Disentangle some emotion from the facts. People are dying less than ever before due to catastrophes. People that die from natural disaster today, largely have encroached on land that was always disaster prone and built massive infrastructure. The cost of natural disasters today is a direct result of populating and constructing in areas that are prone to tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, fire and flooding. It is almost completely preventable.
>you spread climate change denial
False. This is a blatant lie as my comment states clearly, I believe the climate is changing. We are exiting an ice age.
The solutions promoted by people like yourself, are going to cause greater harm than good because you choose to believe the climate should not change! Yes, you who choose to make foolish argument and use phrases like "climate change denial". Yes, you are in denial that the climate is allowed to change.
'The weather should be just the way it was when my grandparents remember the good old days' -you
No, sorry it is you and your internal strife with change that is the problem. Petition the government to change the ways companies and militaries pollute the environment. Leave the rest of us alone with your carbon tax bullshit that we must pay for.
Humans stopped creating a hole in the ozone layer
The state of climate will not have a direct effect on your life, the span of years you are alive. Not to a significant degree.
It can have an indirect effect on your life by the introduction of harmful regressive policies designed to "account" for a changing climate and assign blame to everyday people.
Everyday people do not cause any of the drivers of climate change. Large corporations, governments and militaries do cause these drivers.
So what I'm adding here is sense.
It makes no sense to cripple an economy and destroy the middle class when it is clear there will not be global cooperation in addressing climate change. To be clear we are talking about the fact that BRICs will not cripple their growth and economy for the sake of this guilt complex.
Most countries can't even make a measurable change in comparison to these groups.
It's weird, but for some reason people can't seem to recognize this fact. We exited a major glacial period and have been, for 11000 years, ending an ice age (a period with glacial ice at both polar regions).
CURRENTLY, the period of time we are living in, is considered interglacial despite glaciers still covering significant portions of earth. The expectation is a return to major glaciation. This would be horrible. It is also the predominant condition throughout the history of earth.
PTFE, the material, does not contain PFAS in bulk form.
That's the end.
Floss, as a product, could contain any number of compounds related to the manufacturing, packaging and coating.