No, it's not evolution *at work*. It's human intervention in the environment at work. Sure, evolution will *respond* to this intervention; if you want to see *that* at work, go into suspended animation for a hundred thousand years.

You could argue that *humans* are part of nature and therefore anything we do is natural. That's just quibbling. By that argument it would be just as natural for us to choose not to shit in our own beds.

Only if those 20% have evolved to be much more capable of surviving subsequent bleaching events as well and are not just clinging on to life while in a severely weakend state. While the reality is likely to be somewhere in between, the other extreme - 80% of what remains dying off every 14 months - would mean that we're very rapidly going to be into percentages of surviving coral on a par with the active ingredients in homeopathic remedies. Corals have had a long time to evolve defences against natural bleaching events, which has mostly worked or they'd be extinct already, but it's far from certain that evolution will be able to keep pace with the rate of increasing temperature levels and number of events we're now seeing.

There's also the habitat loss angle to consider. They're probably singling out two of the worst case species here, or maybe these are just being monitored more closely because they are already endangered, but when coral colonies collapse they take a lot of other species in the area that depend on them down too rendering the entire area largely sterile compared to before the collapse. That's not good at all as it leads to a general reduction is biodiversity which can take a lot longer to recover from, if it happens at all, and the implications of that could easily reverberate up the food chain until it starts to impact our already dwindling oceanic food supply.

You paid $14.99 too much. You should not have to pay a dime for the privilege of giving the government your money. They purposely keep the tax code so complex and so difficult to navigate just to appease Intuit lobbyists, while billionaires don't pay jack shit because they're just taking out loans on assets instead of earning income like the rest of us.

Replace the whole damn thing with a 30% sales tax coupled with social safety net handouts for the low earners and abolish the IRS.

Turbotax offers free service to low-to-moderate income people as part of an agreement it has made with the IRS. In return for this, the IRS doesn't provide free electronic tax preparation services like most other advanced countries do. For most consumers, the IRS could in fact automatically fill out their returns and the consumer could simply check it by answering a few simple questions rather than puzzling over instructions written for professional accountants.

If you've always wondered why filing your taxes couldn't be simpler, a bit part of this is marketing from companies like Intuit that make a lot of money out of simplifying the process for taxpayers.

The free tier service is something Intuit is contractually obligated to provide. Upselling low-income people to a paid service that wouldn't benefit them in any way is morally dubious at best.

Everything that happens building an airframe should be a documented process. Calibrated torque wrenches are expected, jumping on things is not.

Sign in window:

Klein bottles for sale.
Inquire within.

I guess that's an inside joke.

Standardized tests can benefit minorities.

One of my online friends is non-white and immigrated to Australia as a child. She had a thick accent and racist teachers labeled her stupid.

Then one day she had the chance to take a standardized test. Her very high intelligence showed, and she got tracked into a selective school and moved into a high-paying career.

Yes, that's not surprising that there's nuance that does beyond the headline. There always is.

Ironically, it's is more of an argument for them. They were not saying there would be no more updates, be them major or minor to windows, but rather than they wouldn't have "numbers" and transition into more of an OS as a service model.

The market doesn't like the sound of that. That's fine, but it's not like if Microsoft stopped numbering their releases they wouldn't be doing the exact same thing: sunsetting older versions of windows and pushing users towards newer supported versions.

I know some people think they should be able to "buy" an OS and stay on it forever, but the internet has rendered that largely impossible. If you want to air-gap your PC and stay on whatever version of Windows you want, go for it, but as soon as you're connected to the internet, they're doing the right thing trying to push people off of codebases that no longer support an economic case for security updates.

You want a pre-WW2 suburb.

I was visiting Oxford UK on business and I stayed at a colleague's house which dated from the1800s. I was shocked that the front door of her house was right at the sidewalk, you could look right into her front room. But it turned out that by giving up privacy in that front room, she got an enormous and very private back yard. The arrangement was something like this. That's just a street in the area I randomly picked off of Google Maps satellite view, but I checked it for walkability: it's less than one minute's walk from the local boozer, and on the way back you can get a takeaway curry.

I don't understand the training push to be honest. If you had "good" AI, couldn't you have it run locally (which I think is Apple's gambit - so "you" run the AI, not some cloud server somewhere), and then do what humans do, which is get the information by "reading" a webpage, instead of trying to download and encode the entire internet into "the parameters", which is what it appears that much of the current brand of AI is doing?

That is - why do you have to "train" an AI by having it process a billion images, instead of when you ask it to find something it, oh, goes and finds it?

(The flip side, of course, is that training AI by looking at, say, images is, in fact, materially no different from humans looking at images to learn. So there is either copyright infringement any time any person learns from looking at an image, or there is no copyright infringement when an AI "learns" from "looking" at an image. Beyond the "copy" of the data that is made to "view" the image, once it's processed into parameters, isn't it no longer a copy? Are companies really trying to make rules like "no entity can look at this web page and learn from it"?)

I'll quote from the Wikipedia Article: "In urban planning, walkability is the accessibility of amenities by foot." It is important to contrast this with the practices it was intended to counter (again from the same article): "... urban spaces should be more than just transport corridors designed for maximum vehicle throughput."

Transit is an integral part of walkable planning simply because it gets people *into* neighborhoods so they can do things on foot. But cars are a way to get people into an area too, so cars can and should be part of *walkability* planning. For example there's a main street area near me with maybe 50-70 stores. When I visit I contribute to congestion by driving around looking for a parking spot. A carefully placed parking lot could reduce car congestion on the street while increasing foot traffic and boosting both business and town tax revenues.

I'm an anglophone. I lived in Quebec for 8 years. I work for a company that is headquartered there. I go there all the time.

This is nothing like what Quebec is doing. Don't be a fucking moron.

So how is that any different from the "safe" drivers paying more for insurance because of all the people who are looking at their phones instead of driving, or driving cars with no tread on the tires, or no brakes, etc.?

That's the whole point of casualty insurance: you are spreading the risk across a larger cohort.

If you don't like paying the companies "making a profit" off their service, you can (in most US states anyway) post a bond for self-insurance with enough funds in it to cover the required minimums for personal injury and property damage liability and then self-fund your vehicle replacement portion.

I wish more people recognized this!

When people talk about "hottest summer" or whatever they are not talking about highest highs. They are talking about highest average. It's total energy content, not peak temperature, that is being discussed.

If the general population can't understand this, we need to be better as a people about basic education.