FWIW, people for the most part evolved without cooking their food. We've been evolving since long before the dinosaurs.

OTOH, they didn't actually decide that "burnt food kills you", they decided that it increased some risks. I've never seen any evidence that this was wrong.

I think it was actually a reference to Revelations, though IIRC, that was supposed to be a mark both on the forehead and on the wrist.

YOU might think of it as a boycott, but I think of it as "self-protection". I avoid Musk's products for self protection...that I also hope it harms him at least a trifle is a minor additional bonus...and it doesn't matter if it doesn't.

However, Florida is a small enough part of the global problem, that what they do locally will have essentially no effect. They couldn't fix the problem with local actions, and they also probably can't make it measurably worse.

Note that the US is not such a small part. That's a large enough fraction of the problem to make a measurable difference. Scale is significant.

Most of Virginia doesn't get all that cold. 30 kids in a room with limited air circulation should suffice, even without lots of insulation. Air conditioning, however, might well be a different matter.

IIRC, there's a decent link between registered gun ownership and the suicide rate. However, a lot of gun ownership is unregistered, so that's probably not reliable.

I might well agree that the current administration is worse, and scale does, indeed, matter. But judging scale when one side is crippling state governments and the other side is removing individual rights isn't clear. The events are too different.

One can say that "morally the crippling of state governments to enfranchise the disenfranchised" is better, but it's still a centralization of control.

To be fair, both sides have uniformly supported measures to increase the government's control over the citizenry. They tend to support different measures, with different arguments, but both do it. This is basically because people act to make their jobs easier. The differences are because they have (sometimes only slightly) different goals, or "centers of power".

Note that this applies to the Warren Court and the civil rights decisions as well as to the current more blatant authoritarianism.

There are huge differences, but it *is* a reasonable analogy. It's certainly more like that than it is like "copying", even though copying, in the extended sense, is involved. As it is in all learning.

But by the time you get that, she'll be over 50, and not at all as appealing.

What you don't understand is the Python is often used as a method of invoking libraries that are written in more efficient languages. And for the layer that it handles it doesn't introduce unacceptable inefficiencies. E.g., you wouldn't want to do ray tracing in Python, but it's fine for calling a library that does that.

I'm quite sure quantum computers are valid. Whether they're useful is another question. I'll agree that it's not clear that general purpose quantum computers will ever be useful. (I won't agree that it's clear they never will be useful.)

OTOH, specialized quantum computers are already useful. DWave sells one design.

There really are good use cases for fission reactors. Solar can't handle everything, even combined with wind and the grid. (But close.)

E,g,, I think that the case for fission reactors on the moon is sound, though any particular implementation may be quite questionable.

I have never detected even a single advantage of systemd. It didn't bother me enough tow switch distributions, but that's the best I can say for it.

Why do you believe those "AI detectors" are accurate? The past evaluations I've seen came to a different conclusion.