Indeed. Although it's much easier to eat healthier in, say, Japan than the USA because of a different food culture and different food infrastructure (as mentioned in two videos I linked to in another comment).

BlueZones has supported initiatives to make healthier eating -- and exercise and other good things -- easier to do by default in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://albertlea.bluezonespro...
        "Blue Zones Project(r) is a community-wide well-being initiative that helps make healthy choices easier for everyone in Albert Lea and Freeborn County. When our entire community participates, small changes contribute huge benefits for all of us: Lowered healthcare costs, improved productivity, and a higher quality of life.
        While many traditional health initiatives focus on diet and exercise programs, we focus on changing our community's culture and environment so that individuals are nudged into making healthy choices. We take a systematic approach to improving well-being through policy, building design, social networks and built environment across all sectors of our community. By optimizing the places that we live, work and play, we can make the healthy choices the easy choices so we naturally adopt healthy behaviors and have the opportunity to LIVE LONGER, BETTER(r)."

The Suppers clubs described in "Logical Miracles" are another approach to make healthier eating more the default in the USA:
"Logical Miracles: 100 Stories of Hope and Healing" by Dor Mullen
https://www.amazon.com/Logical...
        "Why is it so hard to eat right? What does it take to turn around the habits that make us sick and fat? Logical Miracles is a collection of stories by people in The Suppers Programs who found their personal solutions by experimenting with whole food. In an environment of nonjudgment, we cook, taste, and feel our way to health, and we forge new friendships based on healthy living. For five years, pilot Suppers groups have been helping people with a range of food-related challenges find their path, especially people with depression, anxiety, learning issues, obesity, diabetes, and problems with alcohol. No special diets. No fees. No commercial messages. The only requirement for membership is the desire to lead a healthier life. Now we'd like to share our logical miracles, our road maps, our recipes, and especially our hard-earned wisdom related as stories of hope and healing. Welcome to Suppers."

Also tangentially related:
""Stop Moralizing Air Conditioning" -- How Institutions Shift Responsibility Onto Individuals: On Civilization, Responsibility, and the Ethics of Preventable Suffering"
https://jdjayne.substack.com/p...
        "In my first essay on responsibility, I argued that affirming existence means accepting responsibility for a world we did not create. We emerge into the world shaped by the generations before us, and bear the burden of responsibility for ourselves and future generations ahead. Civilization, then, is the organization of that responsibility at scales greater than any individual could achieve alone.
        As civilizations grow and gain more capacity to prevent suffering, preventing that suffering increasingly becomes a collective responsibility rather than an individual burden. My claim is that modern institutions often fail this responsibility by concentrating authority while displacing responsibility back onto individuals through moralizing, bureaucracy, and institutional incentives.
        By institutions, I mean the durable organizations through which societies coordinate responsibilities that no individual can bear alone; governments, markets, corporations, and other structures of collective action.
        By moralizing, I mean the habit of transforming practical and institutional problems into questions of individual virtue. Rather than asking how we should collectively organize to reduce suffering, we ask whether those who suffer deserve relief in the first place.
        The result is a culture that blames individuals for suffering that civilization has already acquired the capability, and thus the responsibility, to prevent. ..."

In this case, institutions collectively managing trillions of dollars a year in the USA between industry and regulatory-captured government agencies have successfully shirked any responsibility to help people be healthy -- and instead such institutions have displaced that responsibility onto individuals by essentially blaming individuals for lack of willpower to resist all the carefully engineered traps the organization have created for individuals including children (like via ultra-processed foods, constant food-related advertising, artificially low prices via government subsidies for animal products, "health" insurance that covers getting sick but not staying healthy, and so on).

An example of such institutional power in action and how ludicrous pushback is often made to seem (Coca Cola's response was to tell them to individually just stop drinking their product if they had concerns):
https://organicconsumers.org/w...
        "William Lamar, the senior pastor at D.C.'s historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, is tired of presiding over funerals for parishioners who died of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.
        So on Thursday, he and another prominent African American pastor filed suit against Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association, claiming soda manufacturers knowingly deceived customers about the health risks of sugar-sweetened beverages -- at enormous cost to their communities. ...
        Obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and lower-extremity amputations are all far higher among people of color than among whites. These communities also drink more soda -- and are exposed to more soda advertising.
        "It's become really clear to me that we're losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," said Coates, who said he has seen members of his congregation give their infants bottles filled with sugary drinks. "There's a great deal of misinformation in our communities, and I think that's largely a function of these deceptive marketing campaigns." ...."

And the spin on how silly such concern about institutional failure is made to seem:
https://taphaps.com/delman-coa...
        "According to the pastors, it is because Coke's commercials often feature misleading images of young, slender people gulping the fizzy beverage, smiling and sharing good times. "It breaks my heart and I'm saddened by the way in which we're losing so many people. I'm losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," Delman Coates added, according to The Blaze. However, the pastors' claims aren't supported by available evidence. In fact, most surveys show people believe sugar to be harmful, but choose to consume it anyway, another article on The Blaze reported.
          This hasn't deterred the pastors from blaming the company, though. "Marketing for Coca-Cola is focused around health and fun and showing very sexy bodies in their advertising. You never see an obese person. If the people are consuming Coca-Cola at this rate, there is no way those bodies would look like that," William Lamar claimed. "It's almost as if they are selling joy. They are equating this product with the things that people are hoping for - joy, smiles, family. But, this product will not deliver that. It delivers the exact opposite. Silence around this issue is violence." ....
        "Our hope is that Coca-Cola will discontinue marketing these drinks as something that is healthful and healthy," William Lamar said, but instead, Coca-Cola dismissed the pastors' allegations, calling them "legally and factually meritless," adding that they "will vigorously defend against them."
        "America's beverage companies know we have an important role to play in addressing our nation's health challenges. That's why we're engaging with health groups and community organizations to drive a reduction in the sugar and calories Americans get from beverages," the American Beverage Association said in a statement defending the industry's conduct. "Unfounded accusations like these won't do anything to address health concerns, but the actions we're taking, particularly in areas where obesity rates are among the highest, can make a difference." ...."

(Obesity may actually be driven more by animal products than sugar, but they certainly overlap as problem areas, and they likely make the problems caused by each other worse.)

by Jeff Nelson, Veg Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "For years we've been told that if one study proves the Mediterranean diet is the healthiest way to eat, it's PREDIMED.
        Doctors cite it. Dietitians cite it. Influencers have built careers on it.
        The headline: Mediterranean diet cuts heart disease by 30%.
        So I sat down and opened the actual paper. Not the press release -- the supplementary tables, where almost nobody looks.
        In today's video I walk through the trial's own tables -- what that 30% actually means, where it came from, and why I think anyone with blocked arteries should be asking a different question entirely."

Spoiler: a low-animal-fat low-seed-oil-fat diet like Ornish, McDougall, Fuhrman and so on suggest actually reverses heart disease rather than maybe just slow it a bit like the Mediterranean diet.

One can then argue about whether fats from nuts, seeds, and avocado are a net benefit (and I am leaning more that way) or whether all fats are problematical (like, say, McDougall suggested). Related by Dr. Fuhrman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/arti...
        "It is important to stand up to individuals who can hurt others with dangerous nutritional advice. We usually see such arguments coming from the meat-promoting nutritional gurus, attempting to find some flaw in a study that demonstrates the dangers of too much animal products in the diet. The number of studies corroborating that more animal products in the diet contribute to the development of chronic disease and premature death is deafening and indisputable at this time.
        However, a similar development is occurring in the denial of the harm that results from omitting nuts and seeds from the diet - and the attempt to bolster support for an extremely low-fat vegan diet, which is clearly dangerous. It has been brought to my attention that a series of videos has been posted and promoted on YouTube attempting to discredit the studies documenting the lifespan-extending properties of including nuts and seeds in one's diet. The individuals represented here want to try to protect their legacy of promoting an extremely low-fat vegan diets (nut and seed exclusion); unfortunately, according to a preponderance of evidence, this outmoded and disproven stance does lead to premature death. Unable to shut down the avalanche of evidence, they attempt to discredit the studies. The facts are: extreme low-fat vegan dieters are at higher risk of depression and dementia, as well as premature mortality, from all causes, and the evidence increases every year. ..."

Here are some arguments against Fuhrman's position on supplementing DHA/EPA though (Jeff is also in the very-low-fat camp overall it seems to me):
"The DHA Dementia Promise Just Took a Hit" by Jeff Nelson -- VegSource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "Are Vegans Being Sold a Story on DHA? It seems so. For years now, vegans have increasingly been told that if they don't take DHA supplements, they may be putting themselves at risk for dementia or Alzheimer's disease. I've always been skeptical of how certain those claims sound, because the actual evidence has never seemed nearly that clear-cut to me. ..."

A big underlying concern is that arteries can leak (hemorrhagic stroke) and so they need to be repaired from the inside, which if it goes too far (too much animal fats, especially in the context of sugar also causing arterial inflammation) then you can get deadly blockage (an ischemic stroke or heart attack).

So that's why I think Fuhrman may be more right on that than, say, McDougall -- where nuts and seeds might help reduce the risk of hemorrhagic stroke among other benefits for vegans by helping with the repair process without it going to far to clogs -- and so might be preventing dementia resulting from many small hemorrhagic strokes? (My speculation.) And it is also maybe why vegans not eating nuts and seeds (or maybe avocados) might potentially benefit from a little animal fat to reduce hemorrhagic stroke risk? Although there might be other issues in play like some fat in the diet helping with neural growth or brain maintenance given the brain is mostly fat.

But Jeff Nelson raises good points on whether supplements for DHA/EPA are essential or create new risks in that and other videos. I'm still a bit on the fence about such supplements even though I currently take an algae-based one.

One reason nutritional information is so confusing -- beyond the complexity of the human body itself -- is because there is so much money on the line (literally trillions of dollars a year in the USA between animal agriculture and the medical system). So there are huge incentives to sow confusion (similar to some other big issues like smoking or climate change). A great movie on that is "What the Health" (mentioned in a previous post by me). There are also not many incentives to research simple unpatentable health-related things like eating better.

As is pointed out in that movie, the animal products industries learned from the cigarette industry that you don't have to win an argument with scientific proof to win in the marketplace; you just have to cause enough confusion by spreading conflicting-seeming information that people give up trying to make sense of things and just keep on with their bad habits (to their own long-term suffering and to someone else's profit).

Interesting. Thanks for the suggestion! Here is a nutritional comparison on the lettuce with frozen spinach and yes the spinach has a lot more of various things (although they don't mention oxalates in that comparison which spinach also has more of):
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was trying a McDougall-ish approach then which is why the fat is so low on purpose. In general I otherwise have some nuts and seeds (and occasionally avocados too) which also add micronutrients (and protein for the nuts and seeds). Here is the spinach & lettuce comparison against pumpkin seeds, almonds, and avocado, and also beans:
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was glad to find that specific nutrition site as otherwise some nutrition sites require a sign up (although those may also have other great features like scanning barcodes). I thought to look for one from a comment someone made that it is good to sanity check what you are eating to look for specific nutrient deficiencies. That's how I learned I am eating a lot less calcium then when I was eating Mozarella string cheese in lettuce wraps.
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

I still need to work on the calcium issue (whereas protein is not an issue for me). Maybe more sesame, chia, or flax seeds? I have a container of chia seeds just sitting in the cupboard, so maybe this will help motivate me to work them into something I eat. Spinach might also improve the calcium situation (except for the oxalates, which is an argument for cooking it). More beans might help with the calcium too.
https://vegfaqs.com/seeds-high...
https://health.clevelandclinic...

Yes, that statement should come with an asterisk proviso. If people get all their calories from table sugar, then yes, they won't be getting any protein (as you say). But if people get all their calories from a variety of whole plant foods, then they will essentially get enough protein. So yes, there is an assumption there that people are not eating some monodiet of, say, all fruit (which is low in protein).

But all fruit and sugar are the rare exceptions of being low protein. For example, eating just potatoes essentially gets you to the RDA of protein (but eating a variety of foods including beans is healthier).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prot...
https://www.eatthismuch.com/ca...
https://www.eatthis.com/potato...

Wild horses eat mostly grass and must get enough protein to be so big and strong. But, admittedly, they eat a lot of grass all day. Likewise gorillas eat lots of vegetation all day.

Related funny video on protein:
""Where do you get your protein?" The Ultimate Response 2025"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Where do vegans get their protein? Let's answer this with the newest data from recent trials, the logic, personal experience, and my friend TRENton."

As Mic the Vegan mentions there, "Fiber is the new protein". The more important question most US Americans should be asking is "Where am I getting my fiber?"

While this is not completely accurate (sodium is lower in the specific products I actually ate, and portions may not be exact, does not include supplements like for vitamin D or algae-based DHA/EPA, etc), here is an approximation of a day of plant-only food I ate a while back showing enough protein (even not eating any beans that day):
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Garth Philip Davis (born January 28, 1970) is an American bariatric surgeon, physician, and author. Davis specializes in weight management and is known for his advocacy of plant-based nutrition. ...
        Davis is a board-certified surgeon who specializes in bariatric surgery and Medical Weight Loss at Mission Weight Management Center in Asheville, North Carolina.[2][5]He is now back in Houston, Texas, working for Houston Methodist and Methodist West, and is serving as the medical director for the Comprehensive Metabolic Disease Management Center. ...
      Davis is best known for his book Proteinaholic: How Our Obsession with Meat Is Killing Us and What We Can Do About It, which argues that a high-protein diet of animal source foods causes people to be overweight and more susceptible to certain diseases, such as cancer and diabetes. Davis states that people can get all the protein they need from a plant-based diet. Davis has written that there is "a broad consensus that including plants and limiting animals in our diets is the single best thing we can do for our health"."

Personally, I question the value of bariatric surgery for most people compared to diet and lifestyle changes (like eating more beans), but it is different from plastic surgery.

Dr. Fuhrman -- who I also linked to a video from -- is an expert in nutrition and health (although he has his own conflicts by selling products, although he has claimed he donates all the profits from them to nutritional research).

Unfortunately, "captured" government policy and short-term profit maximizing make it hard to lose weight in the USA even when you want to. Some related videos:

* "I Investigated The World's Skinniest vs Fattest City" by Will Tennyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "Little Rock, Arkansas, US vs. Tokyo, Japan"

* "How Japan escaped Obesity while America got Fat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

* "Why a Big Mac Costs Less Than a Salad"
https://archive.nytimes.com/ec...

* "What The Health - Full Documentary" (and criticism and response):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://informationisbeautiful...
"'What the Health' Now Debunked by Vox | REBUTTAL" by Mic the Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here is a video that is hilarious (if very sad) when you think about it, as another example of calling out unnecessarily and risky medicine substituting for diet and lifestyle changes:
"This 99 Cent Food [a can of beans] Mimics Ozempic -- Here's How (And How to Use It): Weight Loss Doctor Explains"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj...
        "In 2023 we reported a study that we conducted comparing the prices of meat-like veggie burgers and vegan ground meat to animal meat. We recently expanded our study to include canned and dried beans because these products are often less expensive sources of protein, iron, and other nutrients that are also supplied by veggie burgers and vegan ground meat. ... In both cities, dried beans cost the least per serving, followed by canned beans, then by animal meat, and then by veggie meat. Dried beans cost between 10 cents and 20 cents per serving, depending on the type of bean and the location of the store. Canned beans cost between 25 cents and 40 cents per serving. Compare that to 80 cents to over $2 for a serving of animal meat and 80 cents to $1.24 for a serving of veggie meat. It's clear that beans offer significant cost savings. When you're looking for a low-cost, nutritious, convenient food, remember beans!"

As Dr. Fuhrman, an expert in nutrition, said in the previously linked video at 2:54: "If you can remember anything from this podcast, it's said based on these cited studies] more animal protein shortens lifespan and more plant protein -- paying attention to it, and getting more plant protein, not overeating calories of course -- makes you live longer."

My grocery bill went down eating more the way people like Dr. Joel Fuhrman on recommends. Processed food and animal products -- especially organic ones -- can be expensive.

Killing Us and What We Can Do About It by Garth Davis M.D., Howard Jacobson: https://www.amazon.com/Protein...
====
An acclaimed surgeon specializing in weight loss delivers a paradigm-shifting examination of the diet and health industry's focus on protein, explaining why it is detrimental to our health, and can prevent us from losing weight.

Whether you are seeing a doctor, nutritionist, or a trainer, all of them advise to eat more protein. Foods, drinks, and supplements are loaded with extra protein. Many people use protein for weight control, to gain or lose pounds, while others believe it gives them more energy and is essential for a longer, healthier life. Now, Dr. Garth Davis, an expert in weight loss asks, "Is all this protein making us healthier?"

The answer, he emphatically argues, is NO. Too much protein is actually making us sick, fat, and tired, according to Dr. Davis. If you are getting adequate calories in your diet, there is no such thing as protein deficiency. The healthiest countries in the world eat far less protein than we do and yet we have an entire nation on a protein binge getting sicker by the day.

As a surgeon treating obese patients, Dr. Davis was frustrated by the ever-increasing number of sick and overweight patients, but it wasn't until his own health scare that he realized he could do something about it. Combining cutting-edge research, with his hands-on patient experience and his years dedicated to analyzing studies of the world's longest-lived populations, this explosive, groundbreaking book reveals the truth about the dangers of protein and shares a proven approach to weight loss, health, and longevity.
====

Also: "How Do You Prevent Protein Deficiency? Dr. Joel Fuhrman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "In this informative discussion, Dr. Joel Fuhrman breaks down the importance of protein adequacy and optimal macronutrient ratios for longevity on a plant-based diet. Learn about the surprising fat content of meat, the risks associated with low-carb diets like keto and carnivore, and the science-backed approach of the Nutritarian diet. Discover the crucial role of nuts and seeds in promoting longevity, as demonstrated in the Adventist Health Study, and gain practical tips for fueling athletic performance with whole plant foods."

Meat has been marketed based on scaring people about protein.
Dairy has been marketed based on scaring people about calcium.
You can generally get enough of each if you eat a varied whole-foods plat-based diet especially one including beans and nuts and seeds etc.. Calcium is actually the harder one than protein (since if you get enough calories from whole foods you generally get enough protein):
https://www.worldofvegan.com/v...

Clearly you know nothing about the spiritual satisfaction of using a hand-whittled oak NVIDIA Blackwell Ultra B300 rather some soulless chip made in a factory.

I got Google Play Music for my family back when that was a thing. It was the same price as Spotify, had the same catalog, and included any music on Youtube as well. The fact that it included ad free Youtube was just a bonus. These days that has morphed into Youtube Premium, and I still pay for it. I am mostly there for the music, but the ad free Youtube is not terrible.

The interesting thing is that it is pretty clear that most people just watch the ads. Youtube had $60 billion in yearly revenue last year. More than Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and Warner Brothers combined. Roughly $20 billion of that is credited to Youtube Premium which is bigger than any of its Hollywood competitors.

There's a reason that Peacock is being included with Youtube Premium and not the other way around. Youtube is worth something. Peacock, not so much.

Things have changed dramatically since the heyday when everyone had a cable subscription. I used to work for SlingTV (and then Dish), and I had a front row seat as the whole industry imploded. Every year the television networks and movie studios would sit down and renegotiate their contracts. Despite the fact that viewership was always down at least 10% year over year they always wanted price increases. If the cable providers pushed back (as Dish often did) they would lose access to channels, invariably during football season when it mattered most.

You see, as technology started allowing people to purchase their entertainment piecemeal it soon became clear what parts they were willing to pay for, and which parts they weren't willing to pay for. Hollywood thought that people paid for cable subscriptions to watch their scripted television. It turns out that, for most people anyway, the part of television that they were willing to pay for was live sports.

That's why Disney won't sell you ESPN unless you bundle it with everything else that they sell, and that's also why Disney is suing SlingTV for reselling access on a daily basis. SlingTV's "sports pass" allows you to pay for just the games that you want at a ridiculous price. Disney should be stoked, but instead it has sued because it wants to force sports fans to continue to pay for their other channels.

Almost no one is watching traditional scripted television these days. The few hits that the networks do have tends to be reality TV stuff like "Dancing with the Stars," where the audience can watch people compete in real time. Youtube (not YoutubeTV) has at least half again as many viewers as their next highest competitor (Netflix), at any time during the day, on traditional 10 foot devices (your living room TV). That's not counting people watching Youtube on their phones or their computers. Youtube is killing scripted content on living room televisions, during prime time. During the day its an order of magnitude worse.

Take a look at nielsen.com and take a look for yourself. It's absolutely grim. Look at the shows that are doing relatively well, they are all either sports or sports commentary. That's literally the only reason that anyone watches anything besides YouTube and Netflix.

Apple spent over $20 billion building up a content catalog. At their height they were spending nearly $5 billion a year making shows. They made some great shows and got rave reviews. Amazon spends $1 billion a year for the rights to Thursday night football. That is arguably the worst football game of the week. However, Prime generally gets as many viewers for a single game as Apple has total subscribers, including all of the free subscriptions that Apple gives away. It's not just Apple that is shifting away from scripted television either. Take a look at any of the streaming sites (including Netflix) and you will see that all of their recent moves have been to try and compete for the sports market. That's definitely what YouTube is doing by bundling Peacock.

Hollywood is currently circling the drain. Everyone is up for sale right now. No one is watching scripted television. They certainly aren't paying for it.

There is no next move. Netfilx was buying them for their back catalog. The part of WB that people care about is the part that makes new movies and television, and that part is dead no matter who purchases WB.

If you haven't seen the tour of the Warner Brother's lot, you should do that now. They are still even filming some shows there. My guess is that, no matter who owns it they will probably keep something open there as a museum, but the days of it functioning as a working studio are quickly coming to an end. Heck, they are already living in the past. Most of what they talk about when you visit the studio is shows that they stopped filming over 20 years ago.

Still, it is very interesting to see how shows like "Friends" and "Gilmore Girls" was filmed before computers could be used to create whatever shot you needed.

As I say in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Or in more detail here: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
        The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
        We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
        Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ..."

I can't guaranty 100% that we survive AI by embracing an abundance perspective, but it is probably 100% certain that we will all be doomed if we keep our current scarcity perspective while using such powerful technology.

Kind of like if a teenager is given a muscle car and they drive it a top-speed everywhere while ignoring stop signs and traffic lights (and also drinking, while being sleepy, and texting, and not wearing a set belt, at night). A disastrous crash is almost certain if someone drives that way.
"Risk Factors for Teen Drivers"
https://www.cdc.gov/teen-drive...
      "Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and to allow shorter distances from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next. These risky driving behaviors appear to be worse when a male teenage passenger is present. 35% of male drivers and 18% of female drivers (ages 15â"20 years) who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash in 2020."

Of course, AI for self-driving vehicles might help with those teenager issues. Then sleepy teens can drink and text all they want while the AI chauffeurs them around at a safe speed. :-)

Although the teen may still be at a psychological risk of feeling dis-empowered and frustrated as described in regards to AI in 1947 in "With Folded Hands" depending on the specifics of how that all is implemented: :-(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......
        "With Folded Hands ..." is a 1947 science fiction novelette[1] by American writer Jack Williamson (1908â"2006). In writing it, Williamson was influenced by the aftermath of World War II, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and his concern that "some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run."

Other people with reasonable concerns about AI and how we will use it include:

* Tristan Harris, who gets that we need more compassion in our relation to technology and each other:
"Tristan Harris's New TED Talk, and "AGI Beyond the Buzz: What Is It, and Are We Ready?""
https://centerforhumanetechnol...

* Mo Gwadat, who gets that we have a problematical competitive perspective for developing and deploying AI:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

An interesting phrase here of "Sleep-racing into the machine":
https://www.theepochtimes.com/...
        "If we slow down, someone else wins. If we regulate, we fall behind. If we hesitate, another nation dominates the future.
        Humanity has heard this logic before.
        We once raced to build nuclear weapons under the same justification. But eventually the world understood that capability alone could not be the moral compass. At some point, nations realized that endless acceleration toward destructive power was not wisdom.
        Why are we incapable of having that same conversation about AI?"

From: "On Funding Digital Public Works" https://pdfernhout.net/on-fund...
====
What have funding policies in automotive intelligence wrought?

Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in practice these fail to do justice to the complexity of such systems. The truest physical representation of the knowledge learned by such work is the codebase plus email discussions of it (plus what developers carry in their heads).

We are about to see the emergence of companies licensing that publicly funded software and selling modified versions of such software as proprietary products. There will eventually be hundreds or thousands of paid automotive software engineers working on such software no matter how it is funded, because there will be great value in having such self-driving vehicles given the result of America's horrendous urban planning policies leaving the car as generally the most efficient means of transport in the suburb. The question is, will the results of the work be open for inspection and contribution by the public? Essentially, will those engineers and their employers be "owners" of the software, or will they instead be "stewards" of a larger free and open community development process?

Open source software is typically eventually of much higher quality and reliability because more eyes look over the code for problems and more voices contribute to adding innovative solutions. About 35,000 Americans are killed every year in driving fatalities, and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. Should the software that keeps people safe on roads, and which has already been created primarily with public funds, not also be kept under continuous public scrutiny?

Without concerted action, such software will likely be kept proprietary because that will be more profitable sooner to the people who get in early, and will fit into conventional expectations of business as usual. It will likely end up being available for inspection and testing at best to a few government employees under non-disclosure agreements. We are talking about an entire publicly funded infrastructure about to disappear from the public radar screen. There is something deeply wrong here.

And while it is true many planes like the 757 can fly themselves already for most of their journey, and their software is probably mostly proprietary, the software involved in driving is potentially far more complex as it requires visual recognition of cues in a more complex environment full of many more unpredictable agents operating on much faster timescales. Also, automotive intelligence will touch all of our lives on a daily basis, where as aircraft intelligence can be generally avoided in daily life.

Decisions on how this public intellectual property related to automotive intelligence will be handled will affect the health and safety of every American and later everyone in any developed country. Either way, the automotive software engineers and their employers will do well financially (for example, one might still buy a Volvo because their software engineers are better and they do more thorough testing of configurations). But which way will the public be better off:
* totally dependent on proprietary intelligences under the hoods of their cars which they have no way of understanding, or instead
* with ways to verify what those intelligences do, understand how they operate, and make contributions when they can so such automotive intelligences serve humane purposes better?

If, for example, automotive intelligence was developed under some form of copyleft license like the GNU General Public License, then at least car owners or their "software mechanics" would be assured they could have access to the software in source form to ensure safe operation. What might be "street legal" in terms of software modifications might be a different story -- in the same way people can't legally drive with a cracked windshield or a broken headlight. For example, software changes might need to first be proven safe in simulation before being provisionally "street legal". But, the important thing is, foundations or government agencies funding code development could insist on some form of free licensing terms for automotive intelligence as a matter of public policy.

There are many other areas of human activities that the exponential growth of technology will effect. Automotive intelligence is just one of them that is here now and which I am familiar with from tangential interactions at universities with people developing it. In enough time similar issues will arise for the software behind household robotics or intelligent devices that assist the elderly or handicapped. The IBOT wheelchair by Dean Kamen using complex software to balance on two wheels is just the beginning of such devices.

Note the IBOT wheelchair was developed entirely with private funds it seems, so the reasoning in this essay does not apply directly to it. Also, in general Dean Kamen is a role model of a socially responsible for-profit inventor. Still, the issue arises of whether "Johnson & Johnson" should be funding such development, as was the case, as opposed to, say, the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation", as was not, given the public policy issue of whether individuals should be continually dependent for personal needs on proprietary software. In either case it would be worth it to pay billions for such innovation, and the public will pay that in the end as a toll on for such devices.

There is a real question here of how our society will proceed -- mainly closed or mainly open. It is reflected in everything the non-profit world does -- including the myths it lives by. The choice of myth can be made in part by the funding policies set by foundations and government agencies. The myth that funders may be living by is the scarcity economics myth. How does that myth effect the digital public works funding cycle?
====

Glad to see more people -- including also with Princeton roots -- taking up the cause!!! :-)

17 more years? I can't wait to see people in their 70's through 90's adventuring through the universe. Are stargates handicap-accessible?

Seriously though dude this is actually interesting science news vastly more important than some cheesy show.

"The notion that there is a shortage of physicians is preposterous - the residency programs will continue to be filled every single year."

How on earth are those two things contradictory? The problem is there are too few residencies for how many physicians we need.