But you get laid for 50 years or more...

It's /. I'm sure we will keep it rational and factual...

Are you sure? No? Neither are many investors.
AFAIK: without big government spending as a backstop nobody is ready to start building a new nuclear power plant..
You read many articles about small modular designs but most of the time there is a focus on safety but rarely is there a clear picture on the net price per kWh and how it stacks up against renewables.

And they managed to get paid for exploiting this unique 'human capital' while having some extra cash to spend on automation on top!
Well played!

(nothing further, Your Honor)

He does. He says he is a priest and after talking to it concluded that he had no other choice than accept it as a person.

I just read the interview with the guy and for me the question on whether or not this thing is sentient is actually not on the forefront.
This is about recognizing a machine as a person.
What if a machine reaches that state where it is aware of it's own demise?
This may not actually qualify as 'intelligent' in the eyes of a lot of people but it may quality as being 'sentient'

So that is the question that is being put before us: is a machine that knows about his own death a person? And if so, what rights does that person have?

Nope. Forcing a single standard is not overreaching. It's protecting the customer.
And this effort DID start 15 years ago, AFAIK.
The way I remember it is that they first pushed every Android vendor to micro usb (since Apple wouldn't budge) and then switched to usb-C and are now determined to make Apple comply.

Well. Negativity is the new climate denialism.
This view that 'climate change exists but nobody will ever resolve it' is just the latest incarnation of climate denial.

Two events that coincide are not necessarily caused by one another.
That's also 2 years they have been rolling out 5G. Get off your lazy ass and go torch a few 5G antennas, quick!

Maybe it is you who is lazy.
Something that 'isn't wrong' is not the same as something that is good. Or even good enough.

So maybe it is not a bad idea to put some more thought in what you write. Even if it is a simple email.

I for one try to think about everything I write. For important emails I review myself and even start over from scratch if I feel the tone is not right.

This is the most common misconception about the difference between nuclear fission and fusion (in my opinion).
Nuclear fission can be compared to a rocket: you are (trying to) control a spontaneous process by assembling a critical mass of fissile material.
Nuclear fusion is more like a 'candle in the wind' situation: a very small amount of fusion material is brought together at very high temperature at the very limit of what can be contained.
- Put too much fuel in? Temperature will not be high enough and containment will fail
- Put too little fuel in? Fusion will not be self sustaining and die without external heating
- Don't remove reaction products? Fusion will die because of lack of fusion material
- Any technical issue with containment/heating? Temperature will drop and fusion will die

Typical. Science: "We think things are worse than we thought". Climate denialis: "So all your predictions are crap".
I guess I should have seen it coming (but I didn't).

Yep. Pretty brutal. Certainly if you realize that the alternative is... no movement at all...

As a fission naysayer (which I admittedly am) my response would be: neither do I know of any fission plant design that provides economically viable power.

For me the question raised here is not the eternal fusion vs. fission vs. 'its impossible' type of argument, but rather this:

It you admit that you want fusion power (which you did) then should we not push for it until we have it? And should the fact that actual fusion power may be a decade or more away from us, stop us?

No. Biodiversity is not climate change

First of all: the fact that you think that climate change increases biodiversity doesn't necessarily make it so. I have no knowledge about it but it seems a rather optimistic .

Second: biodiversity is a problem that is separate from climate change since it has other causes: hunting/fishing, more intensive use of the land (farming/living/industry) and continuing reduction of free space (forests/rainforests).

What this article mentions is that the climate change problem overshadows this one but that both are equally urgent and life threatning.
The only upside is: solutions for climate change may be helping for biodiversity also if we play our cards right.