It's further evidence we live in a simulation. The universe's random event timer(s) trigger, and random (often unfortunate) shit happens.

</troll>

My apologies, but since no-one else seems to have hypothesised the obvious explanation, I thought I'd do it. ;-)

Thank you for providing this correction to GP's post.

Somewhat amusing that that's at +5, Informative though, whilst your post is languishing at +2 (including, I think, my default +1 user / karma bonus).

Interesting, in the sense that, between you and a previous post(er), I now have an idea of scale* and costs:

12m tokens / day @ $50 / m = $600 / day
~ $150,000 / year

This equates to (roughly: varies by location, etc.) the salaries of 2 to 3 junior developers. And I have been led to believe that most AI companies are currently losing money on their offerings, with quoted ratios of 3:2.

There's going to be some 'testing' times ahead...

*I still have no real idea what you're using 12m tokens per day on - though I presume some sort of coding assistance.

Commonly available estimates put the number of Iranians recently (last 5 years) killed by the Iranian state at ~40,000 (well, just under; I've rounded up to the nearest 10k, and make no distinction between demographics)

Similarly, available estimates put the number of recent (last 5 years) casualties in Gaza at ~80,000 (again, I've rounded up to the nearest 10k, and make no distinction between soldiers and civilians; adults or children)

It's also worth pointing out that Iran hasn't damaged or destroyed ~80% of all its infrastructure, including hospitals, power production facilities, sewage systems, desalination plants, etc. nor uprooted or burned all its orchards - unlike the IDF in Gaza...

You, sir, are full of shit!

For a particular definition of 'allowed', I guess the answer is: because they pay for it...

"Europe's top court has ruled Google must pay a €4.1bn (£3.5bn) fine handed down for using its Android mobile operating system to block rivals.

When the fine was first announced in 2018, it was alleged there were three ways in which Google had acted illegally:

[1] - requiring Android handset and tablet manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and its own web browser Chrome as a condition of allowing them to offer access to its Play app store

[2] - making payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators that agreed to exclusively pre-install the Google Search app on their devices

[3] - preventing manufacturers from selling any smart devices powered by alternative "forked" versions of Android by threatening to refuse them permission to pre-install its apps"

Taking gasoline as pure octane, C8H18, i.e. ignoring all the additives that are generally added, and nat gas as pure methane, CH4, then:

By weight (1 kg):
gasoline contains ~0.84 kg of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.75 kg of carbon

By volume (1 L):
gasoline contains ~0.64 kg/L of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.35 kg/L of carbon

When you don't want 'those sorts' of people buying your house?

Oh come on now - the outcome of the training is literally transformative (c.f. GPT, i.e. generative pretrained transformer), hence not a copyright violation. </s>

(Ok, so this ^ was sarcasm. If any lawyer uses this as a defence in court I apologise for potentially giving them the idea. On the plus side, perhaps I could then sue them for copyright violation??)

Except that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much (~2.1:1) land area as the southern hemisphere, meaning rather more plants.

If you ever look at a 'zoomed in' graph of atmospheric CO2 levels the curve is distinctly saw-toothed, as levels rise and fall over the course of a year.

I'll just leave this here, lest some other ignoramus takes your blather too seriously.

In fact, have a snippet, for those unable / unwilling to follow links: "The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China’s emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth. The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."

Now, whilst I have seen breathless headlines suggesting that the US's total emissions are rising once more, allegedly as a result of Donnie's trumpie tantrums against wind and solar, I think I'd rather wait for the official historical figures (assuming they can still be collected) before engaging in too much finger pointing. Having said that however, and to engage in a little whataboutism, the most recent data I have easy access to shows that, despite being the global manufacturing centre of the world, China's CO2 emissions were 8.66 tonnes / capita in 2024, compared with 14.20 tonnes / capita in the US.

One is minded to point out the adages to "remove the plank from one's own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from the eye of another" and to "set one's own house in order, before it's too late"...

Yeah, that was a train wreck. Dude looks out of his tree...

That said, what puzzles me most about that interview was the financial breakdown by the host (to paraphrase): "Your market cap is ~$11 billion, you've got ~$9 billion on your balance sheet ... you provide all your stock, and then your cash, that gets you to $20 billion..."

Um, what?

You can't just add those numbers together to get the net value of the company (or the sum value of its assets, including goodwill, expected future earnings, etc.). They represent the same damn thing!

If the (net) assets a company holds are valued at, or worth, more than its market capitalisation it's normally a good time to buy shares. If the converse is true, then the market is, presumably, considering intangibles and expected future performance in arriving at the share price. What no-one on Earth does (or at least I thought so, up 'til now) is add-up both sides of the balance sheet and say that that represents the true value of the company. That's just insane!

Are you sure? I mean, really sure?

After all, the link you provided states "Disposable income is the amount of money a household has available for spending and saving after income taxes have been deducted" then goes on to qualify this with "This figure will be the most significant dollar amount because government taxes at the federal and state level are not included in the figure."

You'll note that missing from either of these quotes (or any other rider on that page) is any reference to: adjustments for state funded healthcare; parental leave allowance, or maternity or paternity pay; social security benefits / in work benefits; and so on.

So, I wonder, what is it, in toto, that you think 'Disposable income' covers exactly?

So, no actual citation to back up your rather far-fetched claim then, just more misinformation...

No, it doesn't!

I mean, if I were to quote from the actual guidance issued by the court a reasonable reader might agree that it says "Article 8 cannot be construed as conferring the right to live in a particular location"

What the guide does say is that "... in immigration matters, where there is an arguable claim that expulsion threatens to interfere with the alien’s right to respect for his or her private and family life, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention requires that States must make available to the individual concerned the effective possibility of challenging the deportation or refusal of residence order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality [...]. Moreover, a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must not be deprived of all guarantees against arbitrariness. On the contrary, he or she must be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and censure a possible abuse by the authorities. Before that review body the person concerned must have the benefit of adversarial proceedings in order to present his or her point of view and refute the arguments of the authorities."

In other words, in line with section 2 of article 8 ("There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime"), the refusal to allow an individual in / the deportation of an individual must be contestable and in accordance with the law - not that there is no legal right for that refusal or deportation.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, you (seemingly) being anti-immigration doesn't make the FUD you spout correct.

Citation required!

The current rules state (among other things) that "When applicants are considered a danger to national security or public order" asylum claims will be refused, and the applicant deported. One might imagine that a member of a terrorist organisation with a particular bugbear about western, secular, liberal democracies would fall into this category...

So... evidence?

Which isn't the same as a (relatively) stationary kid being hit by a 4000 lb object moving at 6 MPH. The impact, the transfer of momentum, will (usually) be greater.

But, yeah, agreed.

This story serves as a good advert for Waymo, imo.