Same, especially since he plans on going past the end of the first book. She's massively important in the next two books.

Almost certainly not. It's likely open-source distributed training using people's spare computing in a manner similar to BOINC (if not within it) will pop-up for free-model enthusiasts to continue developing such models.

Ok, now image China were split up into 50 tiny countries. In absolute terms, each one has a small fraction of total emissions, so we shouldn't worry about it at all, despite the same amount of total carbon emanating from that region, right?

Even if China's electricity generation were like 70% renewables, they still might be near the top the list in terms of total tons just due to their absolute size. That's why we user per capita. It's a meaningful way to compare how well differently sized countries are doing in terms of limiting how much CO2 living in that country generates.

That's like refusing to get a fire extinguisher because you are waiting for the arsonist that lit your house on fire to sort himself out.

There is almost no politician or party that doesn't encourage certain behaviors or prop up certain industries with tax incentives.

If we just used oil for a feed stock and stopped burning it for transport and electricity we'd be fine, climate-wise. Same goes for coal if we just used it to smelt steel.

The food issue is thornier, because it's not just hydro-carbons: it's also water from non-renewable aquifers and phosphates from non-renewable mineral deposits. I think we'll have to worry about the latter two being exhausted long before the oil runs out. I don't think anyone's yet cracked sustainable farming at a level that supports the current wold population. So far I think our best hope is that the natural population decline that comes with industrialization shrinks the population enough that sustainable methods become tractable before those non-renewables are exhausted.

It terms of carbon emissions per capita, we are around 14th-16th depending on whose list you look use at ~14.5T/person/year. Most of the higher per capita countries are middle eastern countries or small island nations which presumably lead us because they are mostly burning coal or oil. However, they are so small they don't make a huge dent in absolute terms. Because we have a lot of people, and because our per capita energy use is also very high, a small reduction per capita for us makes a huge difference world-wide. Australia and Canada are both right above us, having higher per capita CO2 output, but significantly smaller populations.

However, I don't think it should be on individuals to change their CO2 output. These are for the most part systemic issues and need systemic solutions that are out of the grasp of individuals to enact, but we know the general sketch of what it needs to look like: more renewables in the electric grid, electrify home appliances, emphasize rail shipping over trucking, build better cheaper and more convenient mass transit systems, etc.

That, right there, this very start of a sentence, is where the entirety of the nonsense right-wingers wave around when it comes to this topic, start. Why don't all "I'm not a psychiatrist, but..." people go and check what the actual psychiatrists say on the matter?

Here's a good starting point. This is what the largest psychiatric organization in the world, the American Psychiatric Association, composed of 37,400 registered psychiatrists, and responsible for the DSM, the manual used for the diagnosis and treatment of mental issues in the US and who doubles a core source for the ICD, the general illness diagnostic manual used worldwide, says: What is Gender Disphoria? # Treatment.

No need for "I'm not a psychiatrist, but...", the actual psychiatrists have spoken.

As have done, for that matter, the actual psychologists through the 157,000-members strong American Psychological Association: Transgender Identity Issues in Psychology. So no need for "I'm not a psychologist, but..." either.

Unless your hardware lacks TPM...

I know you're trolling, but these feel like interesting questions on their own, so I'll bite:

That'd fit my "there's some of a gray area in this". It's the kind of situation in which a thorough investigation of the details would be needed. For example, such extremely voracious hunger would suggest the person suffers from extreme polyphagia, on a level approaching that of Tarrare. If that was the case, then it'd be a strong mitigating factor in any punishment.

In the above example, pitied is more the term. And then, ideally, lead to an inquiry on why and how the State failed addressing his extreme medical needs, and on how to fix that failure mode, followed by such fixes being adopted.

Do you think "we" should clean out the garage on Saturday? :')

You angry? (-:

True. Those two sets of laws and enforcement are wholly inconsistent, not to mention unjust in two different directions, which is a lot worse than it being merely one way or the other.

Needs or wants? This makes a huge difference.

IMHO someone going through hunger is perfectly justified in shoplifting food and not be imprisoned for it, particularly if they sought government of charity-provided free food and found none. Not so much for someone shoplifting a mobile phone or two -- per day.

There's some of a gray area in this, but for the most part the two extremes of the line are clearly distinguishable.

Undersea cables have optical repeaters to regenerate the signal every 100km or so. I would think these would need to be upgraded to work with the additional bands.