graeme

Authors don't write their headlines usually. Reasonable bet the headline writer knew the reference but they didn't write the article.

Very broad in fact. The greeks and more had myths of creation from clay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_life_from_clay

There is another plausible causal mechanism: weight gain flowing from hunger/metabolic dysregulation. This dysregulation being caused by some "factor X" which also causes other problems.

GLP-1 then addresses factor X, and the problems it causes, including weight gain.

Not that obesity doesn't independently cause problems but very plausible causality runs more than one way.

>Does anyone really believe Russia will eventually just surrender and leave?

With internal turmoil, yes. To maintain the lines in Ukraine Russia needs to constantly send in troops and materiel.

Eventually Russia may decide not to do so. And then there is no magic "pause the frontlines" button if they do.

There is plenty of precedent for this in Russian history too. The Russian Revolution collapsed the frontlines in WWI. The Soviet Empire collapsed with the fall of communism and concomitant internal turmoil.

Russian propaganda puts a lot effort into treating Russia as some sort of force of nature that cannot be deterred or reasoned with, that will advance and hold Ukraine at all costs.

It isn't true. They're humans like the rest of us, not a natural, unstoppable force.

>Barely any customizations that aren't tied to significant velocity improvements

I never was interested in the tinkering side. The functional side has been very handy.

For example, smart thermostats reduced the heating bill 40% while leaving the place warmer where we actually are.

Smart dimmers on lamps let you dim them in the evening, or turn all the lights off with one push.

Your use cases may vary and the answer may be none do it but a good level of smart home things are quite practical.

You're likely correct, but one big difference is indoor air ventilation standards improved dramatically, leading to less spread of disease indoors.

Simultaneously, air pollution is down, which lowers symptoms.

So it wouldn't surprise me if respiratory incidence is down. Of course there were also more kids in the 1970s, to your point.

>I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable.

This is comparing to the base case of fossil fuels. But those have tremendous negative consequences.

From what people report some can see a full picture.

That is what the Canadian law said. This was "if Meta is showing news content".

Contrary to the law's assumption, news is worth hardly anything to Meta, so they just stopped showing it.

Does the Australian law really say:

1. You must show news, even if you don't want to

2. You must pay to do so

3. The rate will be determined by negotiation with the people you are paying

4. You cannot say no to them in aggregate

I have my doubts, but if it does I still doubt it will get the results the govt wants. The problem is news is not valuable to Meta.

We also haven't solve carbon waste, and carbon waste seems like a dramatically larger problem than nuclear waste.

Not considering this tradeoff has led to much carbon waste.

Not in every country, and secondly if you're basing it on life of the author then that does't solve corporate copyright unless you tie it to the live of a particular employee.

You could do "life of author or X years, whichever is longer". Or include a period after death.

But you see how the complexities come in.

Has there been any update on the pay per crawl program?

Agree on all points. The trouble is if some countries stop the price goes up and there's an incentive to find more oil in countries which didn't stop.

Markets are powerful. No real solution other than making market competitive alternatives such that the desire to dig up oil is simply lost. This may or may not be feasible.

That's a rather misleading statistic. Some is absorbed by oceans, where it acidifies. For land based carbon sinks (trees, soil, etc) any new carbon being deposited is competing with existing carbon in the carbon cycle.

If your stat had any sense then atmospheric carbon levels would rapidly plunge in a few centuries without humans burning carbon. They plainly don't do that.

Global co2 emissions are at an all time high.

Co2 parts per million are a stock, like the level of water in a bathtub. Annual emissions are a flow, like how strongly the water is flowing in.

The tub is fuller than ever before AND filling at the fastest rate ever.

The problem is that carbon energy is useful. So unless something globally beats almost all use cases then somewhere marginally it will be worth burning vs not burning it.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

The physical act of smoking itself is harmful. Not just tobacco specifically, burning and inhaling anything.

In the UK it's commonly said, and the Guardian is a UK paper.

Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.

Yes that's correct, thank you, I see my comment implied otherwise.

There had also been Iranian strikes on desalination plants and near the end strikes on Saudi Arabia's red sea assets. I believe these were very convincing.

>The US didn’t stop its offensive because of Iranian weapons.

I would say they did. Gulf countries ran out of missile and drone defenses and a lot of infrastructure was getting hit. Long run loss of capacity here would be worse than temporary strait closure and there were a lot of assets left to hit.

I'm fairly sure my old ipad did, maybe the ipad air 2. My current ipad pro doesn't seem to work this way. I could be mistaken, perhaps I used or charged it more.

>Is it only the dose?

I think they meant, for humans, the dose makes the poison. We would have to eat a very large amount of warfarin to have trouble. Rats get hurt from a small amount.

Poison is dose dependent, but the actual dose dependency is different between species.

I read this as saying a new Kobo in 2026 uses Adobe drm software that has css rules stuck in 2013.

Sure but then what is the point of such a statement other than vibes? You're withdrawing from all argument of the underlying claim.

This isn't true at all. If all of the global rich immediately became carbonless monks....we would cut only a portion of emissions. And continuing to emit increases global warming. Even if you estimate that the top 1% use 70% of our carbon (implausible) that still just pushes threshold back a few decades.

And if industry stopped producing with carbon billions would starve. Industry makes stuff for people. Energy is useful, we aren't just taking oil, coal and gas and burning it in factories for fun.

>The crazy thing is that we have basically everything we need right now.

Have you travelled? This doesn't describe most of the world. Most of the world would need to increase carbon emissions to live the way you're describing.

You aren't describing a zero carbon lifestyle, you're describing a lower carbon lifestyle. And we still use carbon in building the things in your scenario: the building, the car, etc.

Lower carbon lifestyles can slow the speed of the increase in global warming, but as long as we're emitting any carbon we're increasing global energy forcing.

By all means choose lower carbon lifestyles, but fundamentally we need nuclear or renewables + battery or all of the above such that we don't face a tradeoff between energy use and getting stuff people want.

Energy is extremely useful.

This then that makes the argument very hard to respond to.

"No I didn't mean this [virtuous example]. I meant the vast majority of [unnamed nefarious actors] which I don't need to elaborate about as their existence is obvious."

Once you say it's just hyperbole and you don't mean it literally, then the only way to prove it is a statistical argument.

"The overwhelmingly share of company founders and companies are bad and don't earn their money." is a big claim that requires more than vibes.

Interestingly this also appears to affect corporate partners who had access to Mythos before the wider Fable release.

>But Apple's position here is actually really wild: Apple claims to protect user privacy all the time. But they can't offer a product in a major jurisdiction that has actually meaningful privacy laws? Didn't they consider that while designing the product?

The DMA isn't a privacy law. In this case, the DMA would appear to require Apple to open up all user data to any AI agent. That removes the ability to provide privacy protections.

You can argue Apple should do that, but you can't in the same breathe argue for privacy.

Economics talks about externalities constantly, but nobody listens to them because people hate thinking about externalities.

I teach the LSAT and one of the passages is famously about this mania and contends that it was actually rational. You paid a high price for a tulip bulb, planted it, and then sold the descendants which paid off the original price.

The narrative from this article seems to be largely based on Thackeray's book from 1841. Wikipedia suggests the LSAT passage is modern scholarly received wisdom at least in some quarters, but does anyone have better knowledge of the state of our understanding of the history of tulip prices?

Edit: the top comment provided what I had been thinking of. My account above about profits wasn't right, because the trades were never fulfilled. When prices went too high, people didn't honour their contracts and that was that. No one went bankrupt. And as the bulb owners had bought at lower prices they also were fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48322546

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...