The UK was using "listening ears" to detect incoming attacks before radar existed.

I don't think that's really needed in this case, however, because:
1) We do have radar now and human visual tricks don't really matter to it, and
2) Purely optical detection is still trivial for non-humans, this hits exactly one intended blind-spot tuned just for us.

This is a one-trick pony, albeit that trick is very cool if you happen to be a deaf human without access to a variable frame rate camera (e.g. any cheap modern phone), and the payload isn't subject to being centrifuged into oblivion. Most small mammals will still see it just fine; cameras running at a multiple of its rotation rate will see it as a stable if somewhat blurry image. And a high enough shutter speed (given enough light) would just plain show it as it is.

For spying on protestors in a noisy urban environment - This is perfect. Against any military targets with better tech than longbows and armored cavalry, not so much.

What exactly do you mean by "woke" and "DEI"? Like, contains black people in more than just the background? Has two major female characters that talk to each other about something other than a male character? Has people who aren't straight cis anglo-saxon protestants?

You massively overestimate the capabilities of state of the art AI tools.

A badly done movie by a talentless hack that got a lot of press hype does not a technology define.

First off, a lot of AI use in movies is not "generating the movie". It's special effects. Replacing backgrounds, adding in effects that look better than CGI at lower cost, "tweening", fixing filming errors, etc.

Secondly, you can do a lot better than that terrible demon movie. For example.

The problem is that first off, by and large, it doesn't. Some cases have but perfectly legitimate alternatives - for example, the courts found that Anthropic copying material they haven't bought is illegal but that it's perfectly legal for them to buy used/surplus books en masse for pennies on the dollar, scan them in, and train on that.

Secondly, even if you take an ultra-restrictive view on copyright and heavily strengthen copyright legislation, you're not getting rid of AI. You're just handing control of it over to e.g. Disney, Google, etc. Do you honestly think that's better? Also, what you're killing is free, open source AI. You think that makes for a better world?

Your complaint is practically word for word the complaint that weavers had against the introduction of industrial looms. Should we ban machine-made clothing?

And BTW, to all the people obssessed with "paleo" / "cave men" diets and think that means "meat":

While there certainly were (just like today) some hunter-gatherer societies (such as in the high arctic) that got most of their calories from meat, the average hunter-gatherer got the majority of their calories from plants. But not highly bred high-calorie plants, but rather high-fibre wild plants, meaning that they had to eat significantly more of these fibre-loaded plants. Your average hunter-gatherer ancestor ate way more fibre than a person eating a "modern" diet today eats.

A proper "paleo" / "cave man" diet isn't a high-meat diet - it's a high fibre diet.

No, the last fad was antioxidants. Bodybuilders being obsessed with protein is entirely different from maxing protein in normal consumer food products (even things as non-protein-related as water itself)

Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs treatment, and the medical system is often pathetically bad about treating them. Chronic inflammation itself can even lead to cancer, such as lymphoma. But you need to find a targeted way to control your specific condition. For example, if you have say Sjögren's with small fibre neuropathy, an appropriate treatment might be IVIG or something like HyQvia or Hizentra - not broad-based immunosuppression. Unfortunately, such treatments are expensive, and doctors often resist prescribing them, or patients end up in insurance-denial hell.

They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

"Fat is bad"
"Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
"Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
"Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

The earlier statements weren't wrong, they were just overly broad.

This is part of why I had the new "ultraprocessed" label. We've been working so hard to separate out what specific things are causing what impacts, and then they just leap backwards and lump everything back together again : Homemade doughnuts deep-fried in coconut oil and lard: "not ultraprocessed". Store whole-grain bread: "ultraprocessed". Such a moronic grouping. Yes, the average of the ultraprocessed category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that says nothing about individual foods. It's also a back door for anti-tech/anti-science woo to sneak into food science.

The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's always a mix. And there's no need to get everything all at once within a single meal - it's fine for it to be spread out not just between meals within a given day, but across multiple days.

Yeah, even on a vegan junk food diet, it's almost impossible for a modern person to not get all the amino acids they need, for the simple reason that there's not just one plant used in vegan junk food - corn, wheat, potato, soy, etc - and together, even if their protein is watered down with a lot of carbs and fat, any realistic mix still hits sufficient levels of essential amino acids, as the required amounts of each to avoid deficiency aren't huge.

Vegans have other actual things to worry more about. B12, for example, requires fortification or supplements (the body stores years worth at a time, but eventually you will run out if you don't consume it). Iron is highly likely to be in the low-but-acceptable to deficient range if either the diet isn't specifically high-iron or supplements taken. Some other minerals are real but lesser risks than iron as well. Etc.

Re: protein, they're surely talking about "in a modern diet, without disease, alcoholism, etc". Of course people in sustenance diets can readily end up with protein deficiency. Some diseases can cause it, and severe alcoholism can lead people to it as well. But a "normal" person eating any "normal" modern diet doesn't really need to think about whether they're getting enough protein.

Now, deficiency aside, people working on muscle building do need to actually think about what they're eating. But again most go too far - benefits taper off after about 1,6-2,2g/kg-d. There's some uncertainty about these figures, and it's possible that there may be some benefit to somewhat higher protein intake, but there's no benefit to living off of an extreme protein diet like some do.

Yeah, the grocery stores in Iceland stock huge amounts of "Collab" sparkling water, whose main selling point is that it contains "marine collagen". Aka fish skin. People are buying fish skin soda. En masse.

This world is insane.

As long as we're throwing out unsubstantiated claims - though this is completely true - I work for a company with effectively zero on-prem non-front-line workers. And not talking about the financial services sector or some niche mom-n'-pop, it employs a few thousand people (is that less than "many thousands"? Does it matter?) in an industry we all use but isn't particularly visible; I'd call it better than 50/50 you've personally received services from my employer.

When I say "virtually all white collar work", I mean exactly that; and while I recognize your hyperbole, I have no issue with it because it's still true, at least as a proof of concept. Your own company's failure to accomplish the same is a condemnation, not a counterpoint. Sure, let's not sugar coat this - Of course there are people who can't be trusted to work remotely. That's a completely different claim, however, than saying the job itself couldn't be performed remotely.

More importantly than our respective anecdata, I'm not the one initiating this claim. I provided a cite, take it up with Marissa Shandell, Courtney Elliott, and Adam Grant as published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

/ And don't think I didn't catch that context switch between your third and fourth paragraphs... Unless you happen to be a manager of professional social media astroturfers.

I agree with you overall - I work because I need income to live, not because I give the least damn about my employer.

In my opinion, that's still drastically different than working because it gives me a captive audience of people highly motivated to kiss ass. Loyalty or not, I am invested in my work (as opposed to my job) - Doing it reasonably well is directly conducive to the company remaining solvent and me continuing to draw a salary.

Am I merely deluding myself by thinking doing the job well because it's in my and my coworkers' best interest, is at least a tiny bit more noble than doing it because I like having an army of sycophants at my disposal? Maybe, Maybe not; in the context of WFH, though - I still get my work done, while the Bill Lundbergs of the world have realized to their horror they're utterly irrelevant to my productivity.