Not actually true; I'm not sure where you get your information, but it's wrong.

For decades on end the big federal subsidies were for nuclear. In last year's Department of Energy budget the Nuclear Energy budget plus the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning budget was 2.38 billion, not too shabby. (And that leaves out the 1.95 billion for Naval reactors.) Solar energy, on the other hand, was 0.318 billion, small even compared to fossil energy ("clean coal" and the like) at 0.865 billion.

Solar and Clean energy technologies was cut by a factor of 4 in the President's 2026 budget request, essentially closing down the program. But, of course, congress sets the budget, not the president, so we don't know what it will be.)

I was in the solar industry in the 1970s. No.

Solar panels were hundreds of dollars a watt back then. They may have been energy-positive, but that was only because solar cells at the time were being made from scrap silicon left over from the semiconductor industry, which was possible because the solar array production volume was so small.

It is hard to overemphasize how effective the ERDA (later DOE) program to advance solar technology was. Pretty much every advance that led to today's 50-cent per watt arrays was pioneered in the Large Silicon Solar Array (LSSA, later renamed Flat Plate Solar array) program.

Turns out that the constitution says nothing about that.

This may be a flaw.

Yes, we can call this actual artificial intelligence. Good work is going on, but it's not the stuff being hyped.

Yes, this is the hype: large language models and their cousins, which have no actual intelligence, but simply put together patterns.

Agree. They should pay back that money they paid in the past as well.

They should pay back the entire payment, not just the final installment; the report should be trashed, and a new report should be commissioned that is written by humans.

I didn't miss that.

What I saw is, they identified signatures that one part of the report was AI written. My conclusion is that if they caught an AI writing one part of it, then they probably used an AI to write all of it. That final section just happened to be the part that got caught.

Good. Washington Post is paywalled.

Which is precisely why this article is interesting.

In humans, gender roles are so pervasive that it is completely impossible to separate out the effect of chromosomes from the effects of different gender roles. Looking at 1000 different mammal and bird species takes away that confounding factor. It's particularly fascinating because by looking at both mammals and birds, they look at cases where the male has the unpaired sex chromosome and compare it with cases there the female has the unpaired sex chromosome.

The hypothesis is that life could exist in the ocean beneath the Enceladus ice shell, about 30 degrees F, not on the icy surface. That's about 275K, not 157K.

I stand corrected.

I'd like to see a good line of evidence eliminating the possibility that better diagnosis technology --finding cancers that previously wouldn't have been discovered-- isn't the cause.

But he's nevertheless correct.

Phones have been extensively researched, and there's no evidence that they cause cancer.

(on the other hand, the lack of exercise caused by sitting in a chair and being glued to your phone and your many other devices may be a factor.)

OOH! I think you have it! The Solomon solution: just divide it in two and give each museum half!

You are aware that it's the shuttle in Washington DC that they're planning to move, not the one in New York, right?

And they want to move it from the Smithsonian collection, a museum that's free and open to the public, to a private pay-to-visit museum.

(*to be technically accurate, in Arlington Virginia, right next door to DC)

Not a bad proposal.

A lot of the far-from-actual-truth flood of misinformation comes from identified human beings, but it might at least stop some of the flood of AI-generated disinformation.