Having a million separate taxes is a legacy from a distributed type of governance which has long stopped existing. All layers of government should get the vast majority from property, capital gains and estate taxes.

Some disencentivization taxes can be appropriate, but road transport in general is not something to disencentivize in my opinion, only a small part is luxury spending.

There is no passport control at the border of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. (And between most E.U. countries).

If the primordial dark matter is clumpy, then you don't necessarily need millisecond pulsars. The radiation could be clumpy because two clumps of dark matter are slowly passing through each other.

With so little evidence, you can make almost anything fit.

You can choose to reject much of the industrial revolution. Most Westerners are able to purchase human-crafted  personal goods. From 100% re-built autos to hand-woven suits and dresses, the items are available. The price?  Consumption of a  fewer number of "long term" purchases,  and great self-satisfaction in identifying master-craft products. As a rule,  let peons and sociopaths buy mass-produced items.

Replacing makes as much literal sense, as you say, but  the same meaning is not asserted .  USA and Western Europe, while mongrelizing recently, are still living in the shadow of 13-14th Century Italian/French Enlightenment. Russia and China and Islamic lands never experienced  this humanizing experience, and thus in their darkest of hearts still act like 8th century savages.

"There is no post-AI economy, there is only homelessness, poverty and starvation. That's exactly what billionaires intend." Really?  Wealth prefers a dystopian hell-whole? I would think the privileged  value SECURITY above all. Peasants with  chicken in every pot and a pork-chop for breakfast ... or a brook trout in every creel ... never threaten the lord-of-manor. Have our financial  masters become stupid in their success? That would be a damning critique of post-modern wealth; say nothing of the institutions that educated them. 

Then the yuan would rise ...

There is one thing they want to buy, Euro assets ... something which they can only do because the EU allows it.

If sabotage becomes an explicit act of war on US/EU/Russian/Chinese territory it might cause some hesitation on all sides.

It always boils down to the question: Does it matter?

Does it matter if you have 9 or 10 dollars, if all you want is to buy an ice cone for $3.50?

Does it matter if there are 9 or 10 parking lots if you know 5 of them are occupied, and you want to park your car?

Sometimes, 9 or 10 is a question of life and death. Are there 9 or 10 people in the burning building, and have we account for all of them rescued from the fire? Sometimes it is totally irrelevant.

Same with Dark Matter. If we want to account for effects on cosmic scales, it is really important. For gravitational effects in our Solar system, not so much.

I though Godels Theorem had resolved this "thinking" issue. A machine can generate only algorithmically-based outputs. Humans ( reasoning entities ) may produce non-algorithmically generated outputs(truths). So nominally you are correct ... "Reasoning is whatever a machine cannot yet do". What  issue you left out is that infinite (fluid)  class of outputs a machine (algorithm) CANNOT  NEVER generate.

We could also call it "apparent gravitational effects, which don't fit our models right now, but would fit perfectly well if we assume about five times more mass than we can actually account for."

No, it's Nibbler poop, as we all know.

People have a very important source of knowledge which is totally missing from AI: experience.

A person knows what "hot" means, because it has touched a hot surface during its lifetime at least once and felt the pain. A person knows how a speed bump affects the car ride, and how lemon tastes. A person knows which shape fits into which hole, because as a child, it has played the game.

Persons learn all the time by formulating hypotheses about the world and then experience how it works out.

AI totally misses this feedback. Or as my father uses to say: AI talks about color like a blind person.

Yeah yeah, it's an easy shot to just say, "Trump would harm the environment if he knew there was progress made somewhere"...and for the record, I have *never* voted for him. ...but I think the fact that a number of comments in the thread echo the sentiment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. The ban on CFCs worked effectively due to global cooperation, but also because of another reason: it was an incredibly easy transition.

There was no ban on in-home refrigerators or freezers. There was no mandatory removal of existing home refrigerators. There was no mandate that cars were sold without air conditioners. There was no fine for using hair spray. Industry had drop-in replacements that worked at least 90% as well, were of similar cost, and worked with existing systems which required those chemicals for operation.

Had the CFC ban required buildings to do six-figure HVAC replacements, or mandate that new cars didn't have air conditioners at all, or perform a blanket-ban on aerosol products completely, or require everyone to replace their refrigerators, or if HFCs were a.) ten times the price, b.) required a top-off once a month, and/or c.) only got half as cold, it'd still be a wedge issue and that hole would be triple the size.

Peel back the layers of rhetoric and sensationalism, and you'll see that there is an element of truth behind a lot of the pushback. Did anyone like drinking through those paper straws that tasted like toilet paper tubes? No; they were about as universally unpopular as a colonoscopy, and I've never once seen a report that they nudged the needle on improving the environment.

My state is talking about banning gas cars and gas stoves and gas furnaces...but over 80% of the electricity generated in my state is generated by...burning oil and natural gas. Does burning oil pollute less when my local power plant does it instead of my car? ...So why is the Red Team in my deeply-blue state so backwards-thinking for pushing back against a ban that won't meaningfully improve its carbon footprint while *also* causing homebuilding prices to go up, *and* gas prices to go up, *and* insurance prices to go up, *and* electric rates to go up?

The CFC ban was easy *because* it was trivial to implement, and caused little to no impact on consumers as a result. I'm pretty sure that *most* environmental regulations would receive bipartisan support and consumer acceptance if they were that easy to do...but somehow, the Red Team are the curmudgeons who don't care about the environment because they don't want to drink cardboard or give up gas stoves to achieve no meaningful improvement on climate change numbers. They're terrible, uneducated, backwater hicks for saying, "build enough climate-friendly grid capacity to handle the expected increase in usage and THEN roll out the mandates", especially when those who shame them suddenly start saying, "not in MY backyard" when windmills and solar panels start getting proposed in THEIR neighborhoods...

...so yeah, Trump's rhetoric on the climate is terrible, no argument. The Republicans *generally* give more pushback on climate initiatives than Democrats, fair. But the CFC ban worked because HFCs were cheap, easy, effective, drop-in replacements, ready to go by time the bans took effect. When climate solutions look like that, they get implemented. When they look like an expensive headache for nominal improvements, they get pushback.

Want proof? Who was the US president who signed on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987? Ronald Reagan. Who was president when it went into effect in 1989? George H.W. Bush.

It's becoming quite clear that semaglutide works by reducing the addiction component of eating, but also affects other addicting substances.

And the nausea discussed apparently counts if you have one episode of nausea or vomiting in a given year. I've had that without semaglutide often enough.

That it doesn't work on Alzheimer isn't a huge surprise to me, the latest research indicates there is a far higher likelihood of Alzheimer being caused by an immune response gone wrong, than by being fat. However, the things that make you fat may also moderate that immune response.