The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.
I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.
Why care about the person behind the Banksy signature?
The art is the important part here.
It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.
But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.
I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.
Windmills don't kill corn. Windmills don't kill clams. They might scare some fish initially due to low frequency vibrations but they will probably adapt. The bird-killing issue is a thing but they've found that they can minimize it somewhat with different paint on the blades.
Yes there are negative issues, just like any other infrastructure project, but you have to weigh them, and you can't let your own ideological alignment get in the way.
Trump hates windmills because he hates how they look near his properties. He has a particular issue and then builds an ideological theme to support it. People get roped into ideology and stop weighing the costs and risks in favor of being a *movement*.
Opposite side of the isle it's just as bad, they're terrible at seeing the benefits of nuclear on ideological growns. They hate burning fossil fuels so bury their head in the sand at plastic incineration being more efficient and overall less carbon intensive than recycling programs.
Offshore windfarms aren't any more harmful than offshore oil rigs, and in practice offshore oil rigs are beneficial for the local ecosystem by adding a habitat (excellent fishing btw).
It's not like we didn't have police, just not what we think of as a modern police force. We had organized law enforcement consisting of sheriffs and constables, with the power to deputize when needed.
This is much the same as we didn't have organized fire brigades, instead we had government officials with the power to organize a response to fires by recruiting more manpower from the populace to fight fires.
Asking if we need a police force because we didn't previously have one is like asking if we need a fire department because previously we only had an informal volunteer fire department. These things only worked in the past because the need was small enough that we didn't have the economy of scale to support a professional firefighting or police force, but with growth, the professionalization required necessitated the formation of these things.
Also the "cops are just slavecatchers" thing is a largely made up and exaggerated talking point by the far left that they repeat ad-nauseum. The first professional police forces in the US were formed in northern cities like Boston and were decidedly *NOT* slavecatchers, but rather organized out of groups normally deputized to enforce the law, turning them into professional employees -- in much the same way a volunteer fire department becomes a full time employer in cities that grow enough to need it.
Some early southern professional police and sheriff departments *were* constituted out of slave patrols, as these were people who were often deputized, but these were not the first police departments, nor did they constitute the majority of them, not even in the south.
All this shows is that society does not need to consume that much fuel, we can adapt.
Not in the slightest.
It just shows we have some levers to reduce consumption that we don't normally use.
It doesn't show that we can reasonably use those levers long term, not that those levers are actually sufficient to reduce fuel consumption enough to make up the difference.
Why not say "School starts when the sun has been up for one hour. During these months school starts at 16:00 TAI, and in these months it starts at 17:00 TAI.
Use the time measurement consistently. Imagine "daylight saving length" where "For these months, start measuring things as one inch longer" and having to change how everything is measured..
Of course, any disruption of sea life is due to global warming. It has nothing at all to do with massive commercial fishing fleets destroying fish stocks, with knock-on effects throughout the food chain.
That's why actual researchers did a study.
Researchers examined the year-to-year change of 33,000 populations in the northern hemisphere between 1993 and 2021, and isolated the effect of the decadal rate of seabed warming from short shifts such as marine heatwaves. They found the drop in biomass from chronic heating to be as high as 19.8% in a single year.
I mean the method they used to isolate the effects of temperature is literally in the first paragraph of the summary.
The vast, vast majority of Americans don't live in "remote areas". They live in towns with infrastructure, and don't drive long distances except for the occasional road trip (a rarer thing these days). While the typical American daily travel experience is a longer distance than in the rest of the world, this is by virtue of car-centric infrastructure, with more people in other developed countries walking or taking public transit, but among people who *do drive* in other countries, it's not a huge difference in terms of how far people drive in a typical journey.
In terms of cold temperatures, the performance differences are vastly overstated by ICE apologists. The country with the highest EV adoption in the world is Norway, a country not exactly known for its mild winters, particularly on the coastline facing the Atlantic. I've lived in a cold climate myself and know the experience well of spending much of the year with my gasoline-powered vehicle's auxiliary heater plugged into an electric socket just to keep the vehicle from freezing, but for some reason that constant energy use was never figured into the calculations. With batteries, you know your range will go down a bit, though that is being mitigated somewhat with newer battery chemistries, and you figure that into the range of the battery capacity when you buy the vehicle.
Resale value is the only point I'll concede, but that's really more a factor of how fast the tech has been developing vs the very mature ICE technology. The exact same thing happened with early gasoline automobiles. As the tech matures you'll see the market for used EVs stabilize, and this is already happening somewhat.
An EV from ten years ago is now very usable on its old battery pack. When you buy an ICE vehicle, you look at the odometer and if it has a lot of miles on it you figure the reduced reliability into the price you're willing to pay. EVs have far more mechanical reliability, so you're more figuring in the functional range on the battery pack in the price you're willing to pay rather than the remaining lifetime on the engine.
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country?
Germany is one example.
Japan is another.
It the US planning a long term occupation of Iran?
Because without that they aren't getting regime change, certainly not a regime change they'd like.
I'm sure that statement is correct in that the encryption algorithm itself is secure, but there is probably a backdoor that got put in when the French government arrested the CEO, then mysteriously released him.
He wasn't saying "ban the car". He was saying "end car dependency." which means constructing multiple modes of transport with the same amount of priority, so that people can choose from the modes that are available, as opposed to building a massive network for cars and only token transit, if at all. People use good transit when it's available, the problem is that the US tends to build either crappy transit or none at all.
I'm guessing two things went into the FAA's decision making:
1) Just like there was uncertainty in the reporting, there was also uncertainty in the FAA as to what the hell was going on. So shutting down the airspace is very prudent.
2) CBP shooting down an object without giving the FAA sufficient notice is a big fracking deal. It very well could have been a civilian aircraft. Making the shutdown a 10 day shutdown guarantees that it becomes national news, which guarantees that reporters will dig into it, CBP will get embarrassed, and they hopefully won't do it again.
xAI wins because Grok is burning through billions and has very little prospects of significant revenue.
Elon Musk wins because he increases his ownership in SpaceX, which is making pretty decent money.
SpaceX win..... SpaceX investors get to share that warm feeling that Tesla investors get from handing over additional large portions of their company to Elon Musk.
And I bet some are rich and crazy enough to pay $$$$$$$$ for a short journey to a barren, dusty place with lots of hazards waiting to kill you.
This is true, people go to Australia all the time.
The Line was always a deeply silly idea. Cities work due to density and having easy access to many things, while getting a lot of use of the same infrastructure. A city's efficiency and degree of flexible access scales at a better than linear rate with population because of the geometry. If I'm in a given location then if I can access any location within radius R of me, that means the number of locations available goes up as roughly R^2. If one has a giant line, it only goes up like R. The entire idea of The Line read like the sort of thing that a 10 year old had and thought was really cool, and then somehow got to do it. Which given how absolutely spoiled the Saudi princes are, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the case that Mohammed bin Salman had this idea when he was a kid, and no one since then has pushed back on it because they are afraid of being Khashoggied.
Except "R" really depends on your ability to travel. Which means what really matters is your proximity to transit and major roads.
I think the Line is probably a bad idea, but I don't think that's the reason why. I think the bigger issue is that cities are ultimately organic creations, shops, industry, and residences show up where they're needed. I'm not sure a planned city will be economically successful.
It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.
