[...]and through use of climate neutral e-fuels made from renewable electricity and captured carbon dioxide and biofuels made from plants.
If this can be ramped up rapidly, it will be just as good as electric vehicles. Electricity in Europe is still about 30% fossil fuel generated.
PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.
What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.
By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.
Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.
Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.
It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.
Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.
So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.
That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.
If I understand your argument correctly, what you are saying is that since Meta already thinks it knows everything about you, then you should be forced to validate that information?
No, that age verification doesn't destroy privacy. It was already destroyed.
I mean, if you tell someone about a trick that you are about to perform on them, do you REALLY think they would then fall for the trick after being informed?
The challenge is that frequent social media use is strongly associated with lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and other mental health challenges in children. It's not quite analogous to playing a trick on someone.
And? What would happen if we stop producing fossil fuels and processed foods? Would that cost more than $5B per hour? For how many hours? 24? 48? 72?
You've misunderstood or not read the article, if you think that they're recommending stopping fossil fuels and unsustainable agricultural practices tonight and seeing how long we last. They're calling for a transformation of power generation and agricultural techniques.
“This is an urgent call to transform our human systems now before collapse becomes inevitable,” said Prof Edgar Gutiérrez-Espeleta, another co-chair and the former environment minister in Costa Rica.
“The science is good. The solutions are known. What is required is the courage to act at the scale and speed that history demands,” he said, adding that the window for action was “rapidly narrowing”.
- TFA.
1) They are easier to get around than a ban of bad content.
My understanding is that the law was written by people cognisant of the reality that there would be many people who could get around it. The point is that a lot of people wouldn't, and that in turn means that if parents want to not have their kids on social media, they can do that without isolating them from their entire peer group.
2) They require anyone above the age to prove their age, thereby destroying their privacy which does far MORE damage than the supposed bad content.
Meta knows everything about you, and you don't have to prove your age. They know when you were born. They sold your private information to Cambridge Analytica to swing elections, and foment coups.
3) They allow the bad content to continue to exist and affect the people they claim are old enough to deal with it. But people are not uniform. What some learn by 16, others do not until 18. Some never learn it. Worst of all, they never offer classes to teach people how to recognize the issues and deal with it. That would be far more effective than a temporary ban.
Are you guessing, or has there been a study showing that educating kids reduces their capacity to be manipulated by social media disinformation and bullying?
no problem.
I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.
Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.
[T]he moment SpaceX makes a mistake and knocks out a Ukrainian drone on a mission, they'll be guilty for everything.
Musk alread did that.
That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.
This isn't true. Transformer based language models can be trained for specialized tasks having nothing to do with chatbots.
That's what I just said.
Here's where the summary goes wrong:
Artificial intelligence is one type of technology that has begun to provide some of these necessary breakthroughs.
Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.
But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".
Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?
