Intel is more woke. Remember half their stuff is named after landmarks in Israel.

A company that is led by members of the tribe cannot go bankrupt. It will always get more credit from the other tribesmen. They create money out of thin air via the Federal Reserve and fractional banking of everyone's money. And they will cross-finance sell / buy parts of "their" companies (companies led or owned by members) whenever they struggle to one another, so the newly created money is channeled into the parent companies to keep them afloat.

As long as money is being created out of thin air, with no thought to actual reserves (if the reserves at Fort Knox are even there anymore), companies under control of the tribe will always survive AND outperform companies NOT under control of them, until they are bought and integrated into this group.

Look how 90% of the media market belongs to 6 companies. The same with food and pharma. Tech as well. There's are reason why all the tech company icons are blue-on-white or rainbow.

The surprising surprise behind that is: if maximum evaporation happens at 520nm, a very lush green, does it have by any chance any relation to plants, who use chlorophyll for their photosynthesis and thus appear mostly green?

Look at the absorption spectrum of the different chlorophyll variants and you will notice that all those different variants leave out the same wavelength region. You probably guess which one: all chlorophyll variants exclude the 520nm region, some even drop off very sharply before that point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.atophort.com/files...

As if every species that evolved some version of cholorophyll for their environment specifically evolved around that. For some reason, it seems as if it was better for all photosynthesizing species to NOT absorb 520nm light but to even REFLECT as much of it as possible from specifically this wavelength. As this is wasting potential solar energy income for that cell, they probably have a good reason to do it that far outweighs the wasted potential. If conserving water and minizing unwanted evaportation was the reason, it could make some sense for evolution to come to this point.

The study didn't concern itself with plants at all, but several biologists will probably home in on it next Monday, I guess.

I don't think a statistic titled "U.S. car owners as of 2021, by age group" talks about BUYING cars instead of OWNING them.

Unless you present a valid source for WHY the title says something totally different to the actual data there, it's a wrong claim from you.

In 2021, the average car owner in the USA was between 55 and 64 years old.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

The age graph looks like a slightly skewed normal distribution, so about a little less than half of car owners could even be older than that.

It is pretty much the Boomer generation and older who are most of the car owners today. It is not surprising that they do not listen to streaming music but AM/FM radio.

There's probably a handful of guys here clamoring for AM radio, but the "convention of American AM radio listeners under 40" is probably the smallest event ever.-

Japan does not have 300mph trains. Their top speed is 320kph, quite a bit less. And riding these trains is hardly comfortable enough to do it for 10 hours. The 2+ hours ride from Tokyo to Osaka is shaky enough, despite all the advancements. It's much better economically and ecologically, and faster than taking a flight for the same trip, but it's not that great in terms of comfort. Shinkansen has too little room for luggage (90% of Japanese travelers travel for business and family visit and thus don't take a large suitcase; Japanese rarely travel with small children, not even in the subways, so there's little space or even width to put up with a stroller)

I'm not saying it's bad. The Shinkansen are the best train system in the world, but mainly because of their punctuality, their reliability, their extremely high frequency (one train every 10 minutes, so waiting times are minimal) and the overall speed of getting from and to city centers. However, they are not the paragon of comfort and certainly not cheap to ride or operate.

The maglev trains are even worse regarding comfort and cost. The Shanghai airport maglev is marginally faster than Shinkansen, but a LOT less comfortable. You wouldn't ride them for hours, and many passengers would regularly get sick during the ride.

With the size of the US and the distances between their population centers, high speed rail is not that great. Not even ecologically. Propelling a train at 300kph or 300mph through dense air on ground level takes insane amounts of energy to overcome air resistance. Electric propulsion may be cleaner or at least possibly be produced renewably, but HSR is using VERY MUCH of it. Don't underestimate the power consumption. For Shinkansen, it is 17 MW. Seventeen MEGAwatts. Per train. And for the 2+ hours between Tokyo and Osaka, 10min apart, there are about 12 trains en route during the day, per direction, so about 400 MW continuous usage just for that flagship route. That is the output of one block of a nuclear nuclear power plant completely drained. For one route.

You describe gendered insults that have no place in a discussion anywhere ever for any reason. It has nothing to do with what the OP talked about.

OP did talk about a term that disparages certain behavior (speaking in a manner perceived as arrogant or aloof) AND that ties is to the gender of the speaker.

This word is the worst term ever invented by modern society, because it alone ruins decades worth of effort to achieve gender equality and gender neutrality. This word alone destroys any hope of civil discourse whenever it is used, because it creates an insurmountable obstacle between the person using it and the person receiving it. Why I think that is:

It assumes manner of speaking and gender of speaker are strongly linked, therefore the person using it destroys any of their other claims about genders being equal. They could not be equal if their manner of speaking would be gender-typical, because different things cannot be equal in all regards or they weren't different.

There is no term for the other gender, so it creates the illusion that people from that gender simply are not capable or would never do that behavior, linking behavior even further to gender AND pretending one side to be free from fault in the discussion merely by virtue of being that particular gender

Anyone who wishes to promote gender-neutrality ruins themselves and all their effort by using it even once.

Also, it alienates the speakers receiving it from any further interaction immediately and forever. If it is wrongly applied to someone who does NOT identify as a man, that person may feel hurt beyond belief. If that person is a man, it will frustrate any and all efforts for speaking, because they cannot not be a man and therefore could not partake in the discussion, EVER.

With that term alone, the discussion is immediately over for all participants and there cannot be any reconciliation between them unless taken back. It has the same effect as the N word in a debate about race. All aspects of the discussion become moot, because it is no longer about facts and opinions, but the deepest identification or even the DNA of the speakers. At that point, they are insulted for being something that they cannot change and any further interaction is pointless.

And you do not want to alienate more than half of the population from further interactions unless your character is the absolute worst. And if you alienate enough people for long enough what they are and cannot change, some of them will become hostile and violent.

You should leave the West for a vacation in East and South East Asia soon.

Just sit there on a street and look at, nay, marvel at the complete NONEXISTENCE of any environmental protection, the complete disregard for not using fossil fuels, the sheer number of combustion engines passing by per minute even in cities that have absolutely, insanely perfect public transport, like Tokyo and Seoul.

And then count the number of AC units on their 20-40 story housing towers, where every apartment complex has 5 or 10 of these, where this one complex has easily enough the same number inhabitants as a small Western city. Every district of their cities being much larger than most Western cities. And EVERY apartment has 1-4 AC units running 24/7 in summer.

This will get you a sense for the scale of the problem and a sense of humility about the actual impact of everything we do in the West. Outside of the US, the rest of the Western world is a tiny sliver on the planetary scale of things.

And the Sudanese are very happy to live in Sudan instead of living in the utterly racist Western societies.

Not.

The summary talks like they only cared about the drives that failed. The actual article is entirely different and makes it absolutely clear that it is about "drive days" and calculated from that the annualized failure rates, which are quite low.

Only true journalists possess the skill to process an article that loudly says "1% of most drive types fail per year" into a summary "drives typically fail after two and half years".

Yes, we are missing data on how long Backblaze is operating their drives on average, but that average would mean very little on the stats, because the AFR stats are quite varied between drives. We would need to see the AFR values developing over time PER DRIVE MODEL to gain any insight from it on what to buy as a SOHO operator, because in SOHO, most drives are run until they actually fail and it'd be nice to see which one last the longest. Backblaze will retire drives long before failure, because of energy efficiency gains, upgrading clusters with bigger drives and anticipating / avoiding unplanned downtime.

The summary leaves out the most critical info from the actual article: the annualized failure rates of most of their drives are below 1%. A failure risk of 1% and lower per drive can easily mean operating a smaller batch for years without encountering a single failure.

Whoever is still wearing a mask has a personal anxiety problem.

It has been several years now and the apocalypse hasn't happened. Anyone who wants and believes in the vaccines can have as many covid vaccines as they want, for free, at the nearest CVS or Walgreens. Anyone who doesn't has no fear of covid anyway and probably had it already, twice.

Also, there is ample scientific evidence available now about the ineffectiveness of the masks in real-world scenarios, even compared in clinical settings with medical professionals wearing and changing them often makes very little to no difference, so a real-world usage where it is almost never changed daily, the expected results are non-existent.

Additionally, with very few people still wearing them, any minuscule tiny effect, the 0.000001% they might still have is nullified because nobody else is doing it.

Wearing the mask at this point has no actual effect. Not a little, not "just-in-case" and not "if it saves one life" - it doesn't. It will not save even one (1) person from even a mild illness.

It is a political statement and the desire to remain validated about their choices over the pandemic despite MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary.

What would you say about banning the private sale of nuclear weapons? Or fully automatic small arms and grenades?

Does banning them "push them underground and it becomes even less controllable"?

Nah. You're just cherry-picking your arguments. I highly doubt you're in favor of selling hand grenades in anonymous markets.

A far more likely reason would be that safety protocols for dealing with dangerous pathogens were insufficient or disregarded in the Wuhan lab. Negligence and human error are always the most likely explanations for disasters.

And it is very worth the effort to find out what could have prevented the lab leak, assuming it was unintentional.

Safety of anything gets a lot better if lessons are learned from failures, that's why jet travel today is as safe as it is.

And if the lab leak was INTENTIONAL, someone needs to be meet to a firing squad.

- Scenario: It escaped a lab.
- ONE Result: The conspiracy nuts will have a field day, other than that nothing happens because no country would ever allow international examinations of their bio research labs.
- SECOND Result: if safety protocols for labs were insufficient, they can be improved, if safety protocols were correct, but not adhered to, the nations and institutions responsible get punished and asked for reparations, future bio-safety inspections can and will know what and where to look for in audits.

COVID is a tragedy that caused at least a million deaths and billions in damages. Anything that can prevent future outbreaks or reduce their likelihoods is worth investigating.

Not doing an investigation into a disaster of planetary proportions because a "conspiracy nut" could be proven right is the absolute worst. And it in itself proves the conspiracy nuts right. Think about it.

Assuming it came from a lab, that lab would be in Wuhan, meaning a main sponsor of the WHO could be found culpable or negligent. But nobody can know why the WHO doesn't really want to find out anymore, can we?