About 90% of it. In the sense of micronutrient and macronutrient content, it's virtually indistinguishable from lean meat. That includes its b complex and creatine, the kind of things that keep your brain healthy and energized, and are commonly deficient in vegans.

Honestly I don't understand you guys. Basically you're offended that people would eat more of the cow, making its usage more ecologically efficient, while at the same time griping about ecological efficiency of eating meat. As far as I can tell, you just don't like it because of its physical appearance before it ends up on the plate. Which is especially insane given the way you guys resort to highly processing your food just to make it nutritionally viable and somewhat palatable, where it often has a much worse appearance (and smells like dog shit) before reaching your plate than "pink slime" does. Not to mention the way you have to source ingredients from all over the world just to somewhat meet your micro needs, which is ecologically inefficient, and still doesn't even give you what's already available locally from animal products.

At the very least, pick a fucking argument that makes fucking sense. And no, you're not going to convince me to eat nutritionally deficient vegan crap food that's so heavily salted and/or sugary just because it has to hide the fact that it doesn't have any flavor. The worst among you are the ones who demand organic vegan. Remember the b complex and creatine I mentioned earlier? To get a full complement, you're either synthesizing it or you're getting it from animals. Period. Your body and your ideology obviously hate each other. Such a first world problem.

I suppose your question is rhetorical, but the answer is...

Congress tells the White House what to do, but almost never says *how* to do it. For example, congress told the White House to start protecting food safety, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938, with a mandate to "protect and promote public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, the nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation".

Thus, the FDA has a specified mandate, but the White House has considerable leeway in how to implement that mandate. There have been amendments to the instructions over the years, but it's basically "keep the people safe" from perceived risks.

The FDA mandate applies when an AI is acting in anything related to a medical capacity, and the FTC can step in when "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" happen in the AI sphere, and the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act" covers various misuse of the computers of other people.

That last bit, CFAA, sounds like it might apply in this case.

The executive branch also has sweeping "emergency" powers if it believes something is or might be an immediate threat. It can also create new powers "by default" when they believe there is sufficient danger - such as when the EPA was created by Richard Nixon because Congress did not pass a resolution of disapproval within 60 days. (It was later given funding by congress, which effectively validated its existence.)

Congress is notoriously slow to act, and hesitant to act until a real threat is demonstrated. In the meantime, the executive branch can respond quickly to individual events with individual actions (which is what this sounds like), giving Congress time to consider the issue.

All of this is as it should be.

You may not like the current administration, but responding to potential threats is one of its functions.

If it's anything like the Oscars, the whole thing is determined by whoever pays the highest bribe to promote their crap. I don't get why people get excited over the world's longest, most boring advertisement.

And Mel Brooks is 100. Age doesn't make them any less relevant, the problem is you're just a fucking prude. Guess what else was popular among the youth in their times? Temperance, fascism, and Maoism. Being an asshole knows no age minimum or maximum.

These guys, though old, age well. Prudish assholes like you do not. History will look favorably upon them, where you'll go down more like Kellogg or Graham.

Quick question: Is she wrong?

The previous post made a point, which you totally sidestepped.

I have no opinion on Sabing Hossenfelder either way, but I get the impression that physics has largely stalled over the last few decades.

So... I'm just wondering, Is she wrong?

First, don't invke a "both sides" fallacy. It's stupid.
Second, is there any evidence anywhere that the US engages in any of these? Because it's already known that Russia does both, and in fact uses chemical weapons such as vx/novochik
Third, president Nixon issued an executive order mandating that no government entities engage in this in any way at all, and unlike your tsar's decrees, executive orders have no effect if they're not made pubic, so they can't be secretly cancelled, amended, or ignored. We have a system of checks and balances, you do not.

So first it was opt in, but because nobody really wanted or asked for it, it became opt out. Still, nobody wanted it, so now they don't even get a choice. And ifans wonder why I don't like apple.

Probably worth mentioning at this time that Russia never stopped its bioweapons (and chemical weapons) research and development, which includes inducing antibiotics resistance into deadly microbes.

If this is what that is, you already know you can count on incompetent Russia to hit itself with its own weapon.

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

First of all, what do you mean by "a cure"? There are so many different ways that cancer varies that chasing after one cure to rule them all is just stupid. This is why the clinical definition of cancer is so narrow: A category of diseases involving cells that ignore normal signals and mechanisms to stop dividing or undergo apoptosis and can invade nearby tissue. Plenty of healthy tissues in your body do one of these but not another. So...how do you target them for a "cure"? The answer is and always will be: It depends.

Second of all, there's already a lot of money being put into cancer research. A great, great deal of it in fact.

Third of all, we already have cures for some forms of cancer. I myself had my cancer cured: I had basal cell carcinoma on the top of my ear lobe. Guess what the cure was? Pretty fucking easy: Pick up a scalpel, use the scalpel to excise the differentiated basal cells. Healthy basal cells will eventually take their place. There, cured.

That's probably because it's stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with my original comment: You so badly overestimate your own expertise on this topic that you literally claimed to know that this is "not thermodynamically possible with known science". The problem is, nobody with actual expertise on this topic, including the ones who are saying this won't work, aren't making this argument. The actual experts on this topic aren't making arguments based on physics, full stop, mainly because from a purely scientific and engineering perspective, the concept itself has already been proven. The concept is only not proven when you take cost into consideration. But you're not making an argument based on cost, you're trying to make an argument based on science, and you lost that argument before you even started. And worse, you still don't even know why you lost that argument.

It's certainly doable, the question is and always has been a matter of cost. As somebody has already mentioned, there are currently several players investing millions into R&D on this. They wouldn't even be going that far if they had already concluded that this was impossible.

No matter who does it though, (Google, SpaceX, some smaller players) they're ultimately counting on Starship delivering what it promises. So far, Starship is doing that, just not on the original predicted time horizon.

This is already a solved problem. Old space just makes very large components (which are impractical from a cost perspective, but don't tell the ESA that, because they're the last holdout still relying on it.) New space relies on shielding, redundancy and error correction. Either way, this isn't an issue.

If it's that simple, then it should be pretty easy to show mathematic proof.

But don't bother, because you've already lost the argument: As with all things SpaceX that people claim are impossible until SpaceX actually pulls it off (and has over a dozen times now) they're talking about whether it's cost effective, not whether the physics works. No competent person is arguing that it can't physically work. SpaceX has done this so many times with so many things that you'd figure people would learn by now to make arguments based on cost effectiveness. Yet here you are, no mention of cost effectiveness anywhere.