Interesting also how he fantasizes about needing get someone else to do it for him.

I think this is what he daydreams about when he wanks.

To me it appears you've go an extreme definition of "meaningful". It you want to claim the effect will be small, I'll go along with you. If you want to claim it won't be present...why do you believe that? It appears to me to be an unreasonable claim.

Well, actually Denver usually DOES have higher cancer rates. Attribution, however, is difficult. (It's probably not just altitude.)

What do you mean? Denver has frequently been compared with some sea level city, and found to suffer more radiation damage. (The exact radiation damage found depends on the study.) Of course, it's hard to control for the amount of granite, etc. nearby, so they aren't strictly reliable studies, but they *have* been made.

Sorry, that's a bad argument. It may well be true, but any absorbed radiation will raise the temperature, and any raise in the temperature makes unusual chemical reactions more probable. So you need to argue that the factor is too trivial to be significant. This is probably true, but has never been demonstrated, and probably cannot be demonstrated. (I've seen claims that they're demonstrated the harmlessness, but the claims were always logically invalid.)

Considerably. Also wider spread.

Well, IIUC the actual models generally say more "nuclear autumn". It's still enough to cause massive famines and various other really undesirable effects. (I didn't say side-effects, because they are really components of 'nuclear autumn.)

OTOH, that was the prediction decades ago for a nuclear war between India and ... Pakistan or Afghanistan (I don't remember which).

I doubt those methods give the estimates for 10m below the surface of the ocean. It *is* a short record, but it's what we've got. Also, I don't see any reason to doubt it, except that I'd rather the answer were different.

Still, don't put high certainty in this particular measure. The problem is that it agrees (in general) with lots of other measures that have a much longer span. There are arguments against pretty much every one of them, but they aren't convincing and even so you have to have dozens of special cases happening at once.

Whether it's profit or not depends on whether people buy anyway. I've decided "no upgrade this year".

You left out informative, but otherwise I pretty much agree with you. The problem is that I expect MANY jobs are going to evaporate. Whether enough new jobs will appear (that are easy to cross-train into) is another question, and I really find it dubious.

We won't find out the answer this year, but we may find out next year.

You may think it sounds like gravitas, but to me is sounds like a desperate ad man.

The methods the summary implies that they use are quite unreliable on an individual basis, but probably pretty good on a population level. So talking about the increase in frequency is probably valid.

The summary implies a very bad wording of the measure. Any requirement that "no AI be used" fails, because you can't tell whether it happened or not.