Spoiler - it can't. Not really. You won't see any Chinese art till the men grow their beards back.

Researchers have done significant work on what "the hottest EVER" actually means. It turns out that much of the data may be skewed by dismissing past extreme measurements as mistakes. When in reality, the present data shows that climate change - WHICH IS REAL - is completely misunderstood. Our current highest "highs" are actually much lower and less frequent than those in the past, as are our lowest lows. This fits perfectly with filter theory. Since CO2 is a filter, it buffers against temperatures rising too much and falling too much. So, in reality, our fear of "extreme weather events" is misleading and probably backward. As CO2 enters the atmosphere, expect fewer extreme weather events and more gradual shifts. In addition, many data-collecting devices once considered "remote" are now closer to parking lots and urban environments, which generate heat islands. In short, we cannot take these pronouncements at face value.

Nuff said

Occam's razor. They don't want us to get ahead, so they are using any means necessary to slow down the creation of our AI infrastructure while they catch up and then (they hope) get ahead. Future wars are always scary. But when has attempting to delay the technology that will be integral to winning those wars EVER worked? Better to just stay ahead of the curve if you can and be on top.

This ALWAYS works. Bernie Sanders couldn't make money running a lemonade stand. Why the heck would I trust anything this guy's plans for "making things fair"?

Nobody deserves anything. The billions of dollars that billionaires control are capital acquired or given as a trust to create more of the same. Failure to do so means that the same capital will evaporate or move. The billionaires are only billionaires so long as they can keep generating wealth. The moment they stop, it quickly disappears. Billionaires who don't work entrust their capital to somebody who will do the same, or it will dissipate. And the biggest problem with taking that capital and giving it to "the people" is that they may "deserve" it. But they will also destroy it. And then nobody will have anything.

"Billionaires only get that way by exploiting workers to create value" - is probably the STUPIDEST Marxist trope I have ever heard. The idea that "labor" is the only thing that creates value is a religious belief foisted on the world by a nutcase and now accepted as a pseudo-science by a gullible world. There are multiple factors that create much more value in the world, with "Risk" being the primary one. Risk is what creates the new. Risk is what drives people to create. Risk should be rewarded. Ambition creates value. Ingenuity creates value. And the labor that Marx constantly drones on about does not exist without these. The billions that billionaires may not be "deserved" - but they are definitely created, not stolen. And encouraging risk by offering great rewards is something to be celebrated. Not mocked. Taxing wealth might be the dumbest old idea to have circled back. How about taxing the loans that the billionaires live off of in lieu of drawing a salary? Better yet. Let's just get rid of the income tax entirely and force billionaires to pay a federal sales tax proportional to what they actually spend? Also, what if the value of the stock taken goes down disproportionately next year? Do we give them back the money they overpaid? Wealth taxes are beyond stupid. They are unworkable.

Will fix all our problems. Because money is magic. And billions of dollars will last forever. There will always be more billionaires. It's about fairness. Billionaires shouldn't exist. They will always whine when you take their money -- said everybody right before they destroyed their state. Wait, I mean destroyed it more. Only liberals could ruin a state as beautiful as California.

To be fair, most of the "recommended" books for reading were utter garbage even 50 years ago, and we're not geared to boys at all!! I can't imagine how bad the selection is now.

People who think AI is going to replace jobs in the long run are idiots. Here is what is really happening on the ground. Short-term - we are reducing the rate of entry-level employee hiring as our Senior Engineers work with AI to develop more efficient workflows. BUT... and here is the kicker... this is only TEMPORARY. The real thing that is happening is that all the things we said we should build but didn't are now getting built. Timelines are accelerating. We are getting more done faster, and that will create more work as the things we want and CAN build increase exponentially. This will finally drive hiring growth because there is a limit to how much even Senior Engineers can oversee with agents. We will have to train the entry-level employees on the new workflows we are developing now. More jobs. Not less. It'll happen. I guarantee it.

The myth that somehow the industrial revolution made life harder is a hard one to break - mainly because of the tripe Marx, Engels, and his ilk spread. The reality is that the misery, deprivation, exploitation, and abuse of the individual were already there. The only thing industrialization did was make it visible by bringing large groups of people together. Before the Industrial Revolution, kids died alone and forgotten on the roads. Children were routinely sold by parents to make ends meet. Farm life? Not so easy when you're trampled under hoof, and nobody gives a damn. Marx and Engels saw the worst of humanity and jumped to the wrong conclusion in blaming capitalism and industrialization. The abuse was there - Capitalism FINALLY exposed it.

The push to have "generative" AI rather than assistive AI is what is causing this pushback. Artists want help rendering THEIR vision, not working with AI to create a collaborative vision. Which is how most tools work now. Because AI does NOT understand art. Doesn't get the nuance. So yeah - AI DOES suck. Now. But this latest MCP for Blender is where the tools need to go - not making the shit themselves.

Do you know what's even less nutritious? Nothing at all. As with EVERYTHING, this is a story of competing trade-offs. Would the ideal be less carbon in the atmosphere? Yes. Of course. But if consuming carbon-filled fuels helps to grow the food, maintain the food, harvest the food, move the food, and get the consumer TO the food. I think it's an all-over win for the carbon-based fuels, even if the food is less nutritious. So, hurray for oil! Hurray for our industrial society!! I cheer our moves to carbon-free sources. However, I don't believe we can accelerate the transition by artificially reducing our dependence. In fact, we may actually slow it down by making the creation of those resources necessary to drive the transition prohibitively expensive.

5th and even 6th generation aim to use the laws of physics to prevent a meltdown - and they have generally succeeded. Making the possibility of nuclear meltdown having the same statistical probability as stepping off a cliff and falling up.

How can you tax wealth based on current stock market valuations? What if the stock collapses? Do you give the money back? Of course, you don't, because the government would have spent it by then. And -- you know -- who cares --- they're rich!! Right. This will not solve ANYTHING and is just another reason California is actually having to ADVERTISE to get people to visit the state. Think about it. California. Needs to advertise to attract visitors to California. That would have been unthinkable even as recently as 2015. Just a sh&#hole.