Yes and no - they claim to predict things *over* the next 50 years. We can check them each and every second until 50 years passes with increasing confidence (or lack there of) in them. The predictions made in the 80s and 90s have so far turned out to be largely accurate, so seems like weâ(TM)re more in the science box than the alchemy one.

Really? Which climate predictions are we talking about here?

Hansenâ(TM)s 1988 models inaccurately predicted emissions levels, but when adjusted for actual emissions levels using the same methodology turns out to be fairly accurate to reality.

The IPCC report from 1990 predicted 0.3Â of warming per year, which tracks well with the 0.2-0.3Â per year weâ(TM)ve seen.

Early predictions of arctic ice melt predicted that the
Volume of arctic sea ice would have fallen by 35% by now, it has fallen by 40% - pretty accurate.

1990s predictions of sea level rise predicted 18cm by now, its risen by 20-25cm - so somewhat conservative but the right trend.

The one prediction that I think it would be possible to point to as âoewrongâ is the idea that freak weather events would increase as sea temperatures rose. The rate of such events has turned out not to rise, however, the severity has risen instead, so this one is a bit off but not significantly.

Another way of phrasing this:

Two projects aim to come up with new models. One is using vast amounts of data and back propagation to learn the values of various coefficients in an existing model. Another is using vast amounts of data and back propogation to come up with a new model that is a vast array of linear equations combined with sigmoid functions.

Phrased that way, it becomes clear that the former is likely to be far more useful for extracting understanding of whatâ(TM)s going on, while the latter is likely to be much more accurate, but impenetrable in terms of understanding.

These are people who were facing serious prison sentences - like, decades. They knew they were innocent, but had had everything they owned taken from them, their reputation dragged through the mud, and were going to prison, and were completely powerless to stop it. I am in no way surprised some of them committed suicide.

Pretty sure weâ(TM)ll get at least a working prototype fusion reactor by 2030. SPARC is well under construction, and thereâ(TM)s a few other promising alternatives out there.

1. Thatâ(TM)s great and all, but can we identify which rocks wonâ(TM)t move for the next 100,000 years? We can certainly make educated guesses, but our understanding of how the planetâ(TM)s surface moves is still pretty immature.

2. Great, you protected it against geology, what about protecting the people who are mining in 5000 years, and have no idea what they just hit? Thereâ(TM)s no guarantee at all that theyâ(TM)ll understand any of the warnings we try to put in place, or know what radiation even is.

3. Great, but can you commit to guarding it from anyone who wants to make a dirty bomb for the next 100,000 years? I doubt it.

Just finding some stable rock and burying it doesnâ(TM)t magically solve the problem.

Sounds like a really bad strategy if you want to save money. C suite executives should be more than capable of understanding that cost cutting to the point at which they risk not meeting the acceptance criteria for the contract is not a good way to run a company. Apparently even SpaceX's moron in chief could understand this, and they were able to deliver under roughly the same contract terms. Your argument is effectively "if you contract with people who are trying to rip you off, they'll try to rip you off". I'd much rather have a contract with someone like that that says "you need to deliver X, Y, and Z, for $ABC", than one that says "deliver X, Y, and Z, if you need more money to rip me off more, just ask."

Not really - thankfully, itâ(TM)s not a cost plus program. Itâ(TM)s a fixed price contract, so the tax payer will (eventually) get what they paid for, at the price they were meant to pay. Boeing is the one getting screwed by their own incompetence.

In this case, pretty sure theyâ(TM)re overstepping by so much that instead, *no one* will comply with the California standard, and California will just not have 3D printers.

No, what Iâ(TM)m suggesting is that your VM will run as aarch64, but you will be able to use Appleâ(TM)s Rosetta engine within that VM to allow you to run x86-64 processes within that aarch64 VM. UTM has support for doing this if you select apple virtualisation as the underlying VM host.

The underlying virtualisation tech is documented here https://developer.apple.com/do...

And the end user simple version is here (at least for UTM) https://docs.getutm.app/advanc...

Not the Minecraft bedrock server, no.

Yeh, except that at least at the moment, Macs are the cheepest things out there. Even their normally exorbitant memory prices are âoereasonableâ just now because PC RAM prices have gone so nuts.

The few cases Iâ(TM)ve met for this are closed source software someone wants to run like the Minecraft server for example (which is a shame, because it needs single core performance where Appleâ(TM)s CPUs excel). The best way to deal with that on an AppleSilicon Mac is to run Linux in a VM on top of Appleâ(TM)s virtualisation framework. Then you can use Rosetta to run it.

I know several people who have frameworks just because they think itâ(TM)s nice hardware. The upgradability is just a nice bonus for them. So yes, they were considering Macs too.

I mean, why is that a simpler explanation than the age of the universe being wrong? We have really quite a lot of evidence that lambda CDM is not working right.