If, as Cheung suggests, the problem may be “too culturally toxic” then the issue is not a failed application of science – it is a an excess of ego.

Physicists are people, and for many fragile, insecure people preservation of the ego is paramount and cannot be challenged under any circumstances, certainly not for the sake of scientific advancement.

If you are down wind and next to the generation facility you get free power. Upwind and 20 miles away you pay full price. Then figure out the in between fees.

If you are exposed to higher risk you should pay less.

..eating good food and exercising results in healthier, longer lives too? In other words...Duh.

Can they at least freakin' attach them to freakin' sharks heads? Is that too much to ask?

Recently a man decided to reduce his intake of table salt – sodium chloride – for health reasons. ChatGPT suggested that he substitute his sodium chloride intake with sodium bromide. He figured they are both sodium related so close enough, but he was wrong.
In a case like this, bad advise was not the root of the problem.
https://www.livescience.com/he...

I fault any company that sends any links in any emails. Every time a customer clicks a legit link from a legit company and nothing bad happens that customer is trained to trust potentially harmful links the future. "It worked just fine last time". Instead of sending their customers a link in an email they should tell them "Go to the official website for Bobs Discount Bank-O-Rama to access your mortgage statement.". Using bookmarks or actually typing www.bobsbank.com is not hard.

My employer filters out all links from all emails. It's not a big deal.

There is no proof that I know of that demonstrates that organic thought is the result of a computation. Why would anybody assume that non-organic computations could results in thoughts?

Focusing on properties that are well defined and measurable assumes that "thinking" can be defined and measured. While possible, I do not see where such an assumption has been demonstrated to be true. Maybe if we can't define a thing it doesn't exist?? Yet surely we can define something that does not exist. So, definitions alone won't solve the general question of existence. Maybe if we can't measure a thing it does not exist? Yet, thoughts exist and how could one measure a thought? What I have concluded so far is that I do see some mysteries - TRUE mysteries - that at their core are incomprehensible.

What if the cheaters wife is actually a huge Coldplay fan? Not anymore.

All I ever hear about is the downside of AI performing more jobs. Sure, I won’t have as much access to well-paying jobs but I won’t need as much money because the AI that took my job makes what I need so much more cheaply. If the AI can produce for next to nothing I can pay next to nothing for the product. So the question is: What is the net cost/benefit balance between fewer jobs and cheaper goods and services?

You want nuclear – ok. But consider charging fees based on proximity to the plant. Downwind and “close” free power, far away and upwind – full price, etc. The cost should reflect the risk. Dramatically reduced energy costs would counteract the NIMBY effect.

Obtuse Applications International founders board, developers of ZZyxF.Lp-7, deprecated past upgrades to Asc-2277_V.12 despite objections by minority bond issuer Gemini Holdings in violation of USC 22-1778.03.

'nuff said.

At least if it smelled like little mousey cheese farts it'd be funny. Gross, but funny. Kind of.

What would happen to the governments in the middle east that rely on oil revenues to maintain their hold on power if we don't need oil any more? Fusion not good for them. We better plan on large scale instability over there.