It is only "unfortunate" if you think people *should* be trusting convincingly faked content in polical ads.
It isn't unfortunate - it's the REASON for the of labeling AI genned content in political ads
"Since 2015, *right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities*, the data shows. At the same time, *attacks and plots ascribed to far-left views accounted for 66 incidents leading to 19 deaths.*"
It has only gotten *worse* since then with the right ramping up the violence across the nation dramatically in the last 2 years.
Stock image sites make their money by selling licenses to copyrighted images. AI generated art has been specifically ruled by courts to NOT be copyrightable. Which means they would have no legal leverage to enforce their licensing for AI generated artwork.
tl;dr: AI artwork breaks their business model in a way they have no legal remedy for except excluding it from their platforms
PREVENTING *all* excess warming by decarbonization would cost a few trillion dollars spread over the next couple of decades and is pretty much finished once you've done that requiring no further 'excess' investment to maintain.
MITIGATING (only) runaway arctic warming by this method would cost at least $11 billion dollars a year - for the next several thousand years (longer than the entire history of 'modern civilization') - costing (order of) 100 trillion dollars net. And requires stable, motivated, and financially capable governments do it that entire time because if you stop you jump from '0' to '100' in less than a decade. I note NO large government in the world has existed for more than a few centuries at this point.
"Trust me - I once saw a statement by the IPCC where they said the science would be changed after the fact to match a political narrative agreed on in advance"
Anyone who ever talked on an encrypted radio channel in the military has experienced exactly this. Never understood why they didn't just mute your own voice in your ear.
You could always tell people who were new to it because they would talk slower and sloower as they unconsciously tried to get their voice in their ear to sync with their speech. After a while you mentally 'switched off' listening to your own voice.
"Create strawmen to knock down since they are easier to attack than the facts."
Your "summary" isn't remotely what the updated report says. It says, 50 years after the initial prediction, we are still on track for disaster. Only now instead of it being 70+ years in the future from 1972, it is less than 20 years in the future from 2022.
These kinds of unforced errors where someone flash burns an organization to the ground because they think their completely commodity product is somehow indispensable to their users and their users won't just leave en-mass if you abuse them for your own benefit....
"Based on this completely not-even-wrong physics crank looking to generate publicity for their website"
In 2005, University of California, Berkeley, researchers made the surprising discovery that making conjoined twins out of young and old mice — such that they share blood and organs — can rejuvenate tissues and reverse the signs of aging in the old mice. The finding sparked a flurry of research into whether a youngster’s blood might contain special proteins or molecules that could serve as a “fountain of youth” for mice and humans alike.
But a new study by the same team shows that similar age-reversing effects can be achieved by simply diluting the blood plasma of old mice — no young blood needed.
In the study, the team found that replacing half of the blood plasma of old mice with a mixture of saline and albumin — where the albumin simply replaces protein that was lost when the original blood plasma was removed — has the same or stronger rejuvenation effects on the brain, liver and muscle than pairing with young mice or young blood exchange. Performing the same procedure on young mice had no detrimental effects on their health.
This discovery shifts the dominant model of rejuvenation away from young blood and toward the benefits of removing age-elevated, and potentially harmful, factors in old blood.
Does this mean donating blood helps?
Link to Original Source
Purism is the fastest way known to irrelevance
There is a crap-ton of evidence placing quasars at cosmological distances. Arp's idea is one of the DISCARDED ideas about what quasars are for really good reasons.
Starting with - why are there no BLUE shifted quasars? If they are ejected from galaxies, we should should see ones coming at us as well as receding from us.
We have images of gravitationally lensed quasars while necessarily places them FURTHER AWAY than the galaxies acting as lenses. We've even witnessed time delayed changes in the multiple images from those lenses.
We have pictures of some of the galaxies quasars are embedded in - which have the SAME redshift as the associated quasar! Quite the coincidence that, eh?
We can measure adsorption lines in their spectrums from intervening clouds of gas. Again, allowing us to place minimum distances on the quasars since they MUST be further away than the clouds of gas.
We can measure all kinds of properties - and they all agree: Quasars are at cosmological distances.
It just proves that you can't simulate it the way they modeled it. One (of many) possible interpretation is that the _model_ is bad.
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner
