If SanDisk has any brains at all, they will be advertising the hell out of this. Just copy the format for an old Timex watch:

"Takes an implosion and keeps on filming."

Same for the Rayfin Benthic subsea camera, though the destroyed lens and damaged PCBs makes it a harder sell.

After WWII, the US spearheaded a new idea in geopolitics... instead of empires, the world would use a system of institutions like the UN, the WHO, the WTO, and the world bank to resolve disputes. The US invited countries to join this alliance network. In exchange for being able to trade with any country in the world (with the US guaranteeing freedom of navigation across the oceans) that country would agree to join the alliance network and basically have the US write their security plan. This was a remarkably effective strategy for both the US and the other allied nations. The US got the benefits of an empire without the nasty necessities of brutally oppressing the other nations under its umbrella, Russia (and later China) were effectively contained, and worldwide economic growth was exponential, with the US being the trading hub for all that money flow, which gave them enormous intelligence gathering potential, not to mention leverage.

The fact that the US forgot how it became the only superpower is rather sad. Yes, there were several missteps along the way, like Vietnam. But it was largely successful. The second gulf war was the first breakdown of the rules-based world order. The UN refused to authorize an invasion of Iraq, and the US said, "to heck with you, we're going anyway, and if you're not with us, you're against us." It's not a coincidence that Putin used the second gulf war as justification when invading Ukraine.

I appreciate that the American people no long want to be the world's police force. I really get it. The thing is, the US did this because it had just fought two world wars, and they knew that Europe, being Europe, was just going to keep fighting wars over and over again, and the US was going to be drawn in every time. When this rules-based world order falls, we're going to see a (hopefully conventional) WWIII, and the US is going to be drawn in again. Everyone in the geopolitical space seems to be saying this is pretty much inevitable. It's sad, but it's a bit like watching a train wreck, and being powerless to stop it.

Both Russia and China had a chance to adopt democracy and join the rules-based world order, and after flirting with it, both have recently turned their back on it. Can Europe save itself? I don't know. It's been demonstrated how to go about it. But can the diverse people of Europe come together and do it? I don't think they're capable.

As of July, yes.

https://www.wusf.org/text/poli...

But it mostly seems to be a huge abundance of slot machines, not card games. And yes, they do not always pay out if you win on these so called machines. And no regulation means no control over the odds, so they could simply not even let you win.

It appears to continue because of really gullible people, not all of them being senior citizens. You have to be incredibly trusting to believe a business running an unlicensed slot machine has any chance of 'winning' money.

That was the new rate. As in they figured this out 10 years ago, changed the advice 8 years ago and the death rate plummeted.

There has not been much written and discussed peanut allergies in at least 5 years because of how we solved most of the problem.

At the height of the problem there was an estimated 100 deaths from peanut allergies a year. https://health.howstuffworks.c...

While I do agree with you, as a citizen of a country that's been on the receiving end of some 51st state rhetoric lately, do you see how the US is being a little expansionist now too?

Speaking of stupid, if IQ peaked around 2012, then it wasn't LLMs that caused it, because they weren't around back then. However, 2012 coincides with the beginning widespread smartphone usage, particularly among high schoolers.

The tools to create this already exist and you can't take them back. Using the same tool to solve some other problem is a completely different question.

I wonder, are there any computers that both have a PS/2 port and also can run Windows 11?

I remember the first time I saw someone interrupt their video to show a short clip of something vaguely relevant that was much better than anything they did.

I was so pissed. I hate those things. It is the ultimate admission of your own stupidity - trying to do an in joke with strangers. Strangers! Worse, often they do it so poorly. OK, some people may like this crap, but not me.

Now AI is basically the same principal but worse - copying funny people because you think it makes you funny. No. real comedy requires timing and so much more, and AI does not have it. I hope it never does.

There has always been the good stuff, the people trying but failing to do the good stuff and the people who have no idea what good stuff is.

The reason people think X was better 10+ years ago is simple. You are comparing the absolute best stuff from all of history with the crap people put out this year. It's like comparing a random film today with the Oscar winners of the last 50 years. Of course the best of fifty years is going to be better than the best of this year.

That does not mean this year is crap - you have to wait for the oscars and compare the winners of this year with the winner of a single year 20 years ago.

Same thing with the internet. We forgot how much crap used to exist and only remember the good stuff. Now we have a lot more crap being put out. But don't compare the current crap with the award winners of yesteryear. Compare the best stuff of today with what came out 20 years ago and you see marked IMPROVEMENT over the past 20 years.

The point is that the speaker isn't controversial at all, and the fact-checking that TED did in advance confirmed this. A group within TED tried to silence his message simply because they disagreed with him, not because he said anything verifiably incorrect. As to the rest of your comment, it's so completely bonkers, you should put it in a TED talk. Please come back to reality.

They did not pass a law. Someone came up with this question, thought, "Hey, I am not important enough to make this decision by myself, so lets ask everyone else that is part of our organization."

So the organization put out a vote to all the members. They voted and now the official position of this International organization is in favor of genetic engineering on wild species.

Now, the organization will lobby governments to make it legal.

You can do the same thing if you are part of some respected organization.

Lets say you are trying to save a near-extinct species. Say for example the Capitalist Republicanus. (These are pretty rare, because the current Republicanus King hates capitalism. He is a Mercantilist that likes tariffs, something Adam Smith hated so much, he created Capitalism.)

So there are only 150 C.Republicanus left, where there used to be millions of them. And of course, most of them are related to each other, as they all live in small communities. This has significantly reduced genetic diversity of the C. Republicanus. Many of them are susceptible to the same disease (Neverus Impeachus).

{Ending joke, real science to follow}

But lucky you, in museums there are several different taxidermy examples of the original specie left. They are old and not properly preserved, but it is possible to examine the skin cells of those stuffed animals. You can't get enough to clone them, but you CAN get about 30% of genetic code. Which you can compare to the living species.

Then you look for the genetic variants and see about 40-100 genes that used to exist in the species before the genetic bottle. You can create 50 different viri that inserts these old genes into the current species. You expose 50 different members of the current species, adding most of those old genes into the current members.

You are not cloning or creating new species, you are re-introducing real genetic diversity that used to exist but is no longer found.

This can make the species far more resilient and make the incestuous nature of the remaining species far less dangerous.

This is what the scientists want to do. They are adding diversity and preventing the problems of all the members currently being related to each other. It means one virus is less likely to kill the entire remaining species, and may fix other problems that come from inbreeding (see pure bred show dogs for the many, many problems that inbreeding causes).

I'm going out on a limb here but I think people need to spend on food vs. an expensive flagship phone.

No? Just me? Ok...

Yes. They are using the Xe-100, tested in Germany.

Note, small, modular nuclear reactors have been thoroughly tested over the past 40 years. This is basically Nasa Readiness level 6/7 for quite a while. The technology has been delayed by fear, not engineering.

Diabetics have two different problems.
1) Too little sugar in their blood.
2) Too much sugar in their blood.

Too little sugar literally means you starve to death in minutes. It does not matter if you have 200 lbs of fat on your body, if the fat is not releasing the sugar into your blood, then your heart, lung, brains have nothing to eat and you die of starvation - even if you look over weight.

Solution is to monitor your blood sugar (either constantly with a Continuous Glucose Monitoring device inserted in your body all the time, or with a finger prick device). Then when the device says to, you eat something with sugar. Sugar pills are recommended, then high sugar liquids (Orange Juice is often recommended), but any source of sugar will save your life. If a diabetic suddenly falls unconscious you usually need to FEED them something just in case their sugar is low. Especially if they have not eaten recently. Unlike the tv shows usually giving them an insulin injection is not the save their life NOW thing to do.

Too much sugar is a longer term problem. It kills your kidneys. A large number of kidney transplants are caused by eating too much when you have diabetes. (Note, it can also work the other way around - the medication they give you for a kidney transplant can give you diabetes) So before a diabetic eats, you need to check your sugar. If it is high, you inject them with insulin and wait 15 minutes before you eat.

Note, this entire process is much harder because of four factors:

A) The symptoms you feel for having too much sugar in your body are almost identical for having too little sugar in your body. You really need to check it with a CGM or a finger prick device before treatment. But in an emergency unconcious giving sugar can save their life and will not kill them if they had too much.

B) Delay. Both eating and injecting insulin take time to affect your body. So it is quite possible to eat too much, resulting in you needing to then inject insulin an hour after you had emergence sugar. Similarly, 2 hours after injecting insulin you might have to eat if you injected too much.

C) Insulin needs to be kept refrigerated or it goes bad. So if you are going out, you should take an ice pack with the insulin.

D) American food system routinely provides way too much carbs. All carbs are the same as sugar, they rocket your blood sugar. If you are not diabetic your body can handle food fine. But the following is too many carbs: two slices of pizza. Hamburger (with bun) AND small french fries. One bagel. A Belgium waffle and hash browns. A stack of pancakes.

Making insulin cheap is very important because what it does is PREVENT KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS. If a diabetic does not use enough insulin, like I said earlier, it kills their kidneys. Then they ask for a transplant and we do not have enough.
So cheap insulin means fewer kidney transplants. And kidney transplants are FAR more expensive than paying for insulin - if only because the medication you need after one is more expensive than the insulin would be.

Cheap insulin = saves the state money.