Apologies for grammar policing, but in case it is educational: you emigrate from a place, and immigrate to a place.

Can someone please explain to me why "la Presidenta" is supposed to be such a scathing moniker? "El Presidente" indicates dictatorship, great. And then...making it feminine somehow becomes more of an insult? No wonder Kamala had no chance.

Before MAGA, the two parties were indistinguishable if you take two steps back. But they at least had the decency to try to keep their corruption behind closed doors; now it is naked and blatant. Never before has a party amassed power, not just in spite of, but because they repeatedly tell blatant and repeatedly disproven lies. Anti-intellectualism is nothing new, but this is the first time in history the federal government has actually enacted anti-science policies. No prior president has refused to accept the legitimacy of an election, tried to coerce states to illegally alter their results, incited a violent riot that was almost certainly intended to be an insurrection, and then pardoned all of those violent offenders, including people who murdered police officers.

I fully agree that the average republocrat is no better than the average demoblican, but anyone who tries to argue that this administration is no different is either a deluded moron or part of the cancer.

Do you also just hang up the phone without saying goodbye like you're in a movie? In many transactions, "thank you" is the natural way to communicate in English "this interaction and conversation is now concluded."

obligatory smbc https://www.smbc-comics.com/co...

Not to mention this is almost certainly single-crystal fused silica wafers, not window glass.

Let's set aside all of the displaced costs from datacenter operations and just focus on direct costs. AI increases productivity by 4%. How much did these companies pay for premium licenses (or, how much will they pay once we are past the "first taste is free" period)? And how does that compare to hiring 4% more people? The article does not include any information about cost. But if you spent more on AI to get that 4% bump than you would have by hiring more people, you are not only failing to run the company efficiently but also screwing over people who could benefit from those potential jobs.

Of course, if anyone actually had to pay for all of the externalized costs, the net benefit would be negative.

"Chemical imbalance" was the explanation for many years, but modern medicine has fairly decisively proven that that is not the sole cause.

No, but I would get on a plane where the frame, fuselage, engines, control systems, and electronics had been studied and deployed for years, and the avionics software was being upgraded after a 6 months review. Nice strawman disguised as an analogy though!

pretty ugly. My favorite phrase that should be utter nonsense but is understood by everyone.

Why bother to lie convincingly, when they have proven repeatedly that blatant, obviously overwhelmingly false lies are readily swallowed down.

I predict exactly none of that will be covered anywhere. It's hard to call that "basic" literacy when 99% of the population has barely ever heard of those topics.

Replying to any response with "provide citations for each point" often has a similar result, causing some answer-swapping. If I am intentionally interacting with an AI, I always add "provide citations" to every query. It's the best use of AI I have found; kinda like how even if the content on Wikipedia is often trash, it does work pretty well if you just treat it as a citation aggregator.

There is a big difference between ideal and good enough. Why not use all 100 million of those people as test subjects? Or do you prefer not to collect data?

Studies cost money. Bigger, more complicated studies cost more money. The more money Moderna is required to spend on studies, the more we all pay, *even those who never take the vaccine*, primarily in increased health insurance costs, and also some of our taxes if any of the research is grant-supported. There are established standards that define "good enough" in every scientific field, because none of us have infinite money or time. In medicine, those standards define the methods and sample sizes, and the DOH had already previously agreed to the proposed methodology. Arbitrarily moving the goalposts just because the brain-damaged person in charge thinks the technology is scary is not science. I agree that many of the things you suggest would indeed make the process more rigorous. And, whether the established standards *should* be made more rigorous is a debate worth having, by actual experts rather than the armchair variety. But "they could have done better, so therefore what they did do is insufficient" is not a valid conclusion.

0.2 seconds of googling says that both Amazon and Google allow you to download purchased music as mp3. How are you posting on slashdot if you cannot perform a basic search?

Sure. Just like I can rip the music off of a CD and then sell it to you. Neither action is legal, but nor are there any technical barriers against either