You never heard about the clever ones that watched Man vs Wild and navigated their way to safety (surviving on bugs and piss)
Note, there were actual survival shows in that era where the presenter actually survived off the land (and lost lots of weight in the process).
If you presume someone is that clever then you can presume that the person is either not lost or is carrying a satellite messenger or locator beacon, either of which cost less than a pair of hiking boots.
A lot of the people who get rescued are not that clever. I very much doubt anyone will have heard about this tech and not already be prepared enough to contact emergency services when lost without it.
The use case for this will be a very lucky edge case.
I don't know, I think there's quite a bit of space between hardcore back country hiker and moron who doesn't think to turn off their phone when they have no signal and the battery is low.
Roaming when there aren't any cell phone towers anywhere around is battery intensive. When I'm doing back country hikes, even without roaming I'm already probably putting excessive demands on the battery by using AllTrails for GPS Navigation and taking pictures and what not, battery life is quite the concern. Consequently, I usually put my phone into airplane mode when I'm hiking in the backcountry so that it's not constantly roaming for no point at all. Seems like that'll undermine the effectiveness of this new tech.
Presumably this only gets deployed if you're way past due (ie lost/in trouble). And if that happens and you see the helicopter you'd probably take your phone out of airplane mode (especially if you heard about this tech).
No, it has practical limits. By the time anyone is looking for someone missing, it's very likely that the missing person's cell phone is no longer working. If you are out of range of a cell tower, such that you can't call for help in the first place and provide precise GPS coordinates, your phone has been busy running at full power trying to contact a cell tower.
This isn't a movie where the protagonist just helplessly watches as their battery drains to zero.
If I'm missing (with no cell signal) I'm turning off my cellphone off (or putting it in airplane mode) to preserve power, only turning it on occasionally to see if I have a signal.
If I saw a helicopter flying around that would probably be a circumstance where I'd turn it on.
As for the OP "why didn't I think of that" I'm sure a lot of people did think of that. But the S&R crowd is pretty small, meaning the set of people who know the industry and have connections to deploy a product is also pretty small. Not to mention the size of the market is also very small meaning there's not a big incentive for investors to help you develop your product even if you have the idea.
If the plastic makers are all sued for the amounts being talking about and they all go bankrupt and make no plastics...
Well just what kind of a world do you think you'll be living in?
Plastics are used for everything, including clothes. There is no aspect of your life that will not suck 1 billion times more than it does now unless you are rich enough to afford boutique plastic products, or you will be using progressive older plastic products from the before times until they die.
Honestly non even nuclear war I think is as big of a danger to civilization overall, as is the destruction of every plastic maker. This may be the final point where we decide as a species to fall back into the mud, or progress.
Ok, lets skip past the obvious point that everyone pointed out, that they'd all get bought out of bankruptcy, and get to the actual point.
Would you drastically cut down your plastic usage if it reduced your life expectancy by a day? Probably not.
Would you drastically cut down your plastic usage if it reduced your life expectancy by a decade? Almost certainly.
The problem is we're not being given that choice. If manufactures knew about the danger and either ignored it or worse, tried to conceal it, then they deserve to pay through the nose (and go to jail depending on the circumstances).
And after that happened, the remaining plastics (or their replacements) would be a lot safer. Or if you really wanted you could probably even find some of the old carcinogenic estrogen simulating plastics for cheap. I guess that's kind of a win-win!
At this point I'll take journalists at their word, and assume wrongdoing by corporations. Luckily I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor executioner; those shouldn't take this approach.
You sweet summer child, google Dateline NBC truck explosion and learn about "journalists." And this was back in 1992.
So your point is that mainstream journalists might be expected to deliberately mislead their viewers every 30+ years or so?
I'm not sure that example makes the point you wanted to make.
Of course journalists can occasionally cross ethical boundaries, just like every profession in existence. It would actually be kinda weird if being a journalist suddenly made people completely incorruptible.
However, for mainstream journalists their reputation is everything, so overall they generally do try to be as unbiased and impartial as possible (at least from the perspective of their audience).
Reputation matters for corporations as well, but not to the same extent and they have the ability to run ad campaigns to repair their reputation in a way that journalists can't.
So in a dispute between a reputable journalist and a company, I generally give the journalist the benefit of the doubt.
Alice: What instrument do you play?
Bob: Dot matrix printer.
Alice: Surely, you jest?
Bob: Eye of the Tiger
a large stretch from Louisiana to Arizona, Washington and Idaho, have a 40% to 50% chance of experiencing above-average temperatures from June through August.
Unless you have a skewed probability distribution this sounds like exactly what you would expect: with a typical symmetric gaussian probability disbtribution half the time you'll be above average and the other half of the time you'll be below. Indeed, these numbers suggest that a cooler than average summer is more likely than not since it you have a 40-50% of being hotter than average then there is a corresponding 50-60% chance of being cooler. Normally you would expect even odds of being either hotter or cooler so a 60-70% chance means that things have changed by 10-20%.
It's almost as if someone is trying to use the public's ignorance of basic statistcs to make these numbers sound far more frightening than they are. A difference of 10-20% is under one standard deviation from the mean which is what you expect to get two years out of three, sounds a lot less scary now doesn't it?
I agree the reporting is confusing/incomplete for not defining what "hotter than average" means. But you're making the fairly common mistake of assuming the reporting is wrong due to ignorance or deliberate misdirection, when in fact you're the one who has come to the wrong conclusion
If you open the article and look at the map included at the very top you see the bands showing things like 70%, 50%, 33% and "equal chance", which in context is obviously a lower category of heat risk than 33%.
So obviously your conclusion that 50% == 'equal chance' would be a normal year is wrong (even assuming a Gaussian distribution).
Again, the reporting is incomplete because it doesn't actually tell us what hotter/cooler means, but I'm assuming it's either 33% above the regular odds of hotter than usual (whether or not a Gaussian) or there's a deadband where there's a range of temperatures considered "normal".
What's the difference between "lobbying" and "bribing"?
They're spelled slightly different.
Also, AIUI, if all you eat is meat you get the runnypooze. You need to eat something with fiber in it as well.
Their money's more important to them than your heath is to you.
If it's well done. But movies lately seem to have extremely lazy.. I don't know if I would only call it writing. Scripts seem to pick up and drop plot lines willy-nilly. You can often find and point to the seams where you can see some producer wanted a particular thing shoe horned into the movie. That's nothing new but better writers and directors could work around it without wrecking the entire film.
We have fewer talented people now and more people who just happen to be somebody's son or nephew or niece or whatever. That was always a bit of a problem in Hollywood but now it seems the permeate everything. The days of a carpenter getting a big break and taking off seem to be over. Although every now and then they do just pick somebody up because they happen to be physically gorgeous but that means they end up being terrible actors....
I doubt talent is the issue, if anything, the level of talent at every level of film making is higher than it's ever been. I think part of the problem is we glorify films from the past. Sure, there's some masterpieces, Godfather, the Good the Bad and the Ugly, Star Wars, etc, and those are still fantastic films to watch. But a cut below that? Even a lot of the "good" films from the era weren't that good, and a lot of the average films just plain suck. I'm betting that if some of these modern bad films were made 50 years ago (same talent, but working with tech of the time) they probably would have been considered decent, if not good, movies.
Now, I think Netflix in particular is doing worse than average, and I think there's a reason.
I heard a piece of advice from a writer once, when you're stuck or the story isn't working then cut out your favourite part (the idea being that you should have cut it earlier but didn't because it was your favourite).
Netflix's model seems to be to give starts carte blanche to do whatever they want, and you can get some really good stuff that way, but you can also get folks doing things like leaving in that favourite scene that they really should have cut and ruining the whole film to justify it.
> professional reviewers
You misspelled paid shills.
The fact you equate rifles with nuclear weapons tells us all we know to know about your intellect, so rest assured we file caring about your feels appropriately as well.
Uhhh, the point was that each category was significantly escalating.
However, in all cases you're dealing with a basic freedom vs harm tradeoff, it's just a question of where you draw the line.
Elon Musk's worry that AI is going to take peoples jobs is based on his very relevant personal experience of the subject.
More than anything else, LLMs are great at spitting out authoritative sounding BS, and at this point that describes about 95% of what Elon Musk does!
Don't panic.
