Hello earthlings! I just arrived from Jupiter. It is my first day on Earth and I have never interacted with humans before.

I just wanted to stop by and say that this seems like such a great idea, I am sure there will be no problems with it. It seems like it will revolutionize your medical research and save many lives, who wouldn't want that? It's a no brainer (yuk yuk)!

Saying it was theirs for the taking is definitely Hubris. I'm not a Microsoft hater at all, they are the best and only game in town when it comes to a lot of aspects of enterprise computing. Smartphones aren't enterprise computing, though. They are consumer devices and required development of a new way to interact with them. That is not something Microsoft has ever excelled at.

I'm an android guy but I recently bought an IPad mini purely because there isn't an Android tablet that small with the specs of the mini. The interface is horrible. It's 10 years behind Android. It goes to show that developing an OS for mobile devices is not a straightforward problem. I'm not a fan of Google's usual "get it 70% finished and then abandon it" ethos, but Android is one area where they really did something unique and did it well.

It might be helpful for shows where it's a long time between seasons. I would want to be able to ask it questions like, "what the fuck is the guy with the beard's problem again?"

I've watched a few documentaries on PFA related issues lately. If you feel like being both horrified and livid at the same time, they're a good choice.

This lawsuit is couched in more mundane legal issues, but I still find it very impressive that the lawyers and executives responsible can actually look themselves in the mirror every day knowing the history of what has gone on with these chemicals. Participating in this lawsuit puts you in a group with a truly remarkable group of scumbags and outright criminals. It's amazing to me that people have allowed themselves to believe that working for a company that is doing absolutely horrible things doesn't mean they bear any responsibility whatsoever.

The issue here is right out of the constitution, no EPA or tree hugging necessary. We have the right to life, liberty, and property. They have materially impacted people's rights to life and property. They are responsible for killing people and making them sick. This is fact, not speculation. They bear the responsibility for cleaning it up.

One might be inclined to give them some kind of grace period with the thinking that they are trying to create products that will benefit society and they are unable to predict the future. They were already given a more than generous grace period and have continued to do what they are doing. Their actions are completely indefensible.

Makes sense! Thanks for the reply, appreciate it.

Hard to assess a field you're not an expert in based on what you find on the internet, but my impression was that the outsider theory that it was not being caused by amyloid plaques was reaching something like "official outsider theory" status. According to articles I've read the amyloid plaque theories are dogma that was becoming more and more questionable based on current research and testing of medications aimed at the plaques.

Not that it would stop drug companies from doing their thing, but I'm wondering when/if the narrative in the press will start to change.

The Business Guys all got a massive throbbing boner for AI because they figured they could slash costs. Unsurprisingly to anyone in the technology industry, the Business Guys' fantasies don't actually translate to what the systems are really capable of.

There will be some good applications in the future. Maybe even revolutionary applications. But they're going to take time to develop and the fact that most of us just write emails all day for a living doesn't mean you can just plop chatgpt in there as a substitute.

Valuable information if you want to launch a competing horrible web search service. To make google as awful as it is has taken years of research!

I've been hearing a lot about carbon offsets from an industry group I'm in. Apparently carbon quotas related to business travel and purchasing offsets is becoming quite common. Have not seen this gain traction in the U.S.

An individual mentioned he purchased them when he traveled for his own purposes. I looked in to it because I would rather do something voluntarily than have more regulations, but I was not comfortable with what I found. Some of the places claim to have audit reports, but they're highlighted in a way that's most friendly to people who aren't familiar with audit reports. Show me the actual report, what controls were tested, and at least some indication of the outcome and maybe I would consider it.

The services just reek of scams. You're sending them money and receiving nothing in return. There needs to be robust evidence that the money is being used properly for me to consider that.

I read an article a while ago that was talking about the coverage of global warming in the media and how it focuses on gloom and doom stories (ahem) rather than practical solutions.

There needs to be collaboration to come up with realistic multifaceted plans which get presented to the public. We're not all going to just stop driving tomorrow, we're not going to convert everything to wind power, we're not all going to start eating only plants grown in our own gardens, and even if we did there would no doubt be significant portions of the problem left unsolved.

People fixate on the idea that there MUST be one solution that fixes the problem wholesale. To deal with an issue this big, it's going to require attacking the problem from multiple angles at the same time.

Nuclear isn't the solution. Electric cars aren't the solution. Carbon capture isn't the solution. Making do with less isn't the solution. Renewables aren't the solution. Limiting air travel isn't the solution. ALL of these things TOGETHER might actually add up to a solution.

Nuance and detail are the one thing no one can handle anymore. Everything has to be simple and complete and understandable by a three year old. Everything has to be tribal. We're going to need to get past that if we want to do anything about this, though. People are going to have to start thinking a little harder and maybe warming up to the idea that the solution is going to include some things that they personally aren't thrilled with.

It's kind of astonishing that the reaction to revenue dropping and a rash of articles about the the product has gone downhill is a, "new operating model" with less resources and more time pressure.

All this started when short term shareholder value became the only thing executives cared about. For a while, I think it was more that leadership just didn't give a shit about product quality or long term viability.

But now I think the management culture has changed so much that they legitimately don't know how to achieve quality or even improvement. Trying to do more with less is the only management technique they know. If something is wrong, do more with less. If the customers don't like your product, don't listen to them, just cut costs.

They should go further with this. HVAC controls would be a good start.

I love my ICE vehicles but I accept that the future is electric.

How about working on methods of actually delivering the amount of power required to consumers before arbitrarily mandating the vehicles themselves, though? Have a viable plan to actually produce that power and build out charging infrastructure to make long journeys less of a hassle for current EV owners. You'll decrease consumers' resistance to EVs at the same time you're preparing for the volume we'll eventually see. Meanwhile, you're giving battery technology time to improve as well which will make a huge difference.

Because it's not politically sexy, that's why.

In the U.S. regulation is often driven by existing industries buying politicians to raise the barriers to entry and box out competition. In the E.U. regulation is driven by trying to protect and benefit citizens, probably to an excessive degree.

No one is getting it totally right, but at least the government of the EU is attempting to serve the people it's supposed to be serving - citizens. I'm not inclined to lean towards more regulations but given the choice between the two? I'll take a government that serves citizens over corporations.

I appreciate the need to increase confidence in our election systems after the 2020 debacle, but, "confident that voting systems and other election infrastructure are well-defended"? What in the entire history of electronic voting machines would lead someone to say something like that?