We cancelled our subscription to the Post after the ownership kiboshed a the editorial team's presidential endorsement last year. Bezos is really pushing the editorial team into his point of view, and the paper is becoming more and more just a mouthpiece for him. This AI thing is amusing, but it's not like it's a surprise.

The only good thing left there is Carolyn Hax.

In order to get the $X from the Canadian government, you need a lot more than just a ASD diagnosis. You have to be affected to the point where it significantly affects your ability to live day-to-day life. It's not automatic based on the diagnosis - you have to have a Dr. fill out a huge form outlining exactly how you are affected and how your disability interferes with living. Things like being unable to feed or dress yourself, or challenges in doing normal life. Feel free to look over the form: https://www.canada.ca/en/reven...

The $X is just a tax credit of around $2000/year. If you don't make enough money to pay taxes, you get nothing back - but if you're dependent on a family member for care, you can transfer some of that to them. It does give you access to some other potential supports. As someone supporting an adult daughter with profound autism - it's hardly some windfall compared to caring for someone who will never be able to live independently.

I've also been diagnosed with ADHD and autism, but with a bit of Concerta and I do just fine. I don't have a disability, because my diagnosis doesn't affect my ability to live.

You're right so far... (for a certain definition of "dumber")

most likely true - given that there are tons of other explanations that seem more plausible, but it's not like we have empiric evidence to show this.

... and there you go from "empirical data" to wild conjecture. It could be caused by a host of things - environmental pollutants, technological changes, pedagogical trends, nutrition, exercise... some combination of all of the above

And ChatGPT won't refuse to answer claiming that you're asking a duplicate question and pointing you at some unrelated question from 5 years ago on a different platform that wasn't answered in the first place.

Relative to the earth, it doesn't rotate at all - by your definition, it doesn't have a day. The earth never rises on the moon - it's always static in the sky. From an external point of view, it does have one sidereal day, but then you'd have to say that earth has 366.24 days in a year if you're going to use that viewpoint.

With respect to the sun, you get just over 12 lunar days in an earth year. Any given point on the moon will see a sunrise 12-13 times over the course of 365 earth days.

In Canada, at least, you do pull from your own pot of money. I'm not financing my parents' CPP, and my kids aren't funding mine. I'm being "forced" to put money in the pot, and what I'll receive on retirement will be calculated based on what I put in, and when I decide to start receiving it.

I'm the same way with google home - multi-room music, light control, doorbells and timers. We also use it for shopping lists. We can all do that from basically anywhere in the house without having to find our phones. We managed to get 3/4 of our devices for free from random promotions and paid half price for the other. The second they ask for a monthly fee, we're dropping them all.

Not sure, but I have VHS tapes from the early 80 that play alright (with a bit of pitch waver sometimes). I also have DVDs from the late 2000s that don't play at all.

As the target approaches the temperature of the heat source, the two will eventually reach equilibrium. If the target somehow got hotter than the source, then the balance of energy would be flowing the other way.

That's enough power to send 80+ DeLoreans into the past.

I'd say the recent incentive to push cities to allow 4-plexes as-of-right and higher-density housing near any rapid transit line is a significant push toward changing living and city growth patterns.

A human could do it, but should they? Absolutely nothing of value would be lost by setting the limit at 5/month. I'd argue for harsher than that. The 154th rainbow magic fairy book can use an alternate pen name if they're cranking out the crap at that pace.

So I have a unique name - not weird, just unique first/last combo. Absolutely everything that shows up in a search for my name is me. I often wish that I had something closer to John Smith, where there are so many matches that it turns into noise. On the other hand, I don't worry about my name being linked to a porn star, sex offender, or moron. But I'd assume for almost most, that keeping their personal information offline means that their google presence gets subsumed by someone else. I'm not sure which is worse - having to own up to everything online, or having to explain someone else's idiocy.

Only if there's a profit motive to come up with a better solution. We need to tax the hell out of these externalities rather than banning things. Sure, use all the PFAS you want, but the environmental/health cost isn't going to be borne by everyone, it's going to be borne by you specifically. I'm always surprised when conservatives are against carbon taxes or the like. It's the best free-market oriented approach to getting real solutions.