The fact is its become endemic, containing it has totally failed. Those who are not young or healthy will absolutely be exposed to it sooner or later irrespective of what actions others take, and they are free to choose to take a vaccine (or not) too.

The risk calculations for the elderly will be different - being they have less time for any potential long term effects to manifest, they are more likely to have had kids already and less likely to have more, and they are at higher risk of serious effects if infected.

In a way, yes. The universe runs on narrativium. That's sort of the claim whenever someone makes claims about an area that they don't understand. And nobody understands modern AIs, not even those who build them.
OTOH, there are tightly reasoned narratives and wish-fulfillment narratives. They aren't the same. This *sounds* like a wish-fulfillment narrative, but he may be actually up to something more dubious. E.g. grounds for firing anyone he wants to.

Well, ads were why I stopped watching TV. Static side panel ads aren't too bad, but anything more than that an ... well, I *may* bother to block it, but I'm more likely to just leave.

I presume it varies greatly based on your area and task.

If you are slapping together a thin generic webui over a milquetoast sql database in a boilerplate-heavy language/framework, then sure I could see massive speedups.

In my particular area, the most unobtrusively useful enhancement is letting it take a crack at a 'code review' before I push it for real. One time it did catch something that would have gone unnoticed that wouldn't have come up for a long time and then it would have been annoying. However earlier today it started going nuts highlighting code that I hadn't changed and insisting that all the variables were named 'dict' and that was a bad idea and should be renamed. Nothing was named dict, the word dict didn't even appear in the codebase it was looking at.

If getting started on something unfamiliar, I *might* do a prompt and then reference that for things to potentially look up. I first started trying to do that and fixing up the result, but ultimately decided that outcome from prompt was harder to salvage than to just throw out and maybe use it as a reference.

I have had moderately more success in letting it predict the next few lines, though it often gets very opinionated about something very wrong. It also tends to assume incorrect things about interfaces that I deal with, interfaces that *should* have been verbatim in their training material.

I don't think AMD even make wifi chipsets themselves?
There's no reason a laptop with an AMD CPU/GPU couldn't use an Intel wifi chipset, many of them even come on minipcie cards and could be swapped over.

I suspect what you're seeing is the manufacturers cheaping out and using lousy chipsets because they can get away with it. Generally components are sold based on claimed specs rather than actual performance.
Two different chipsets might both support 802.11AX, but one might also support monitor mode, come with superior drivers, be able to transmit with higher power and be more sensitive for receiving. But if you're only comparing the 802.11AX support both of these chipsets look to be equal when infact they are anything but.
The same is true of pretty much all components - SSDs and HDDs have wildly different performance/reliability characteristics, memory does too, ethernet chipsets etc.

People will differentiate between an AMD or Intel CPU but consider two different brands of SSD or wireless chipset to be identical.

During the 16th century very little was known about the moon. People could see it, but had no idea what it was or what might be there.
When you have thus unknown you get stories being made up for various reasons - just for fun, to placate curious kids, or to comfort people's fear of the unknown. In the case of the moon science has progressed sufficiently that these stories can now be disproven.

But then where do you draw the line? Is a work of fiction "misinformation" because it portrays something that does not exist, or does it get a pass because it's explicitly labelled as fiction?
How about religion? Most religions describe all powerful deities and scientifically unexplainable miracles, none of which can be proven. Do we class religious teaching as misinformation too?

Then there are other cases. Consider new research that contradicts previously established research? This happens all the time as science advances. Should a scientist's new theory be immediately discredited without giving it an opportunity for peer review and further research simply because it seeks to disprove some earlier research?
Science needs healthy debate, it needs people to challenge established facts either to prove or disprove them.

Bleach *does* destroy covid, that's factually correct.
It will also destroy the host creature, that's a fact too.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe one fact and ignore the other.
Bleach is useful and has its place for disinfecting non organic objects which might have been contaminated.

People stupid enough to drink bleach would actually reduce hospital workload during a similar pandemic, since they'd die much quicker than the infected and thus no longer require ongoing treatment.

That's the main problem, vaccines were rushed out without long term testing which understandably has people worried.

For people who were young and otherwise healthy the effects of COVID were generally minimal. Weighing up "risk of dying from COVID" vs "risk of long term side effects from minimally tested vaccine" some people made the choice not to take the vaccine, and why shouldn't they? That was their choice to make.

If in "a whole lot more years" there is proven a link between the vaccines and cancer, or other seriously negative side effects then who's going to have made the better choice?

There are a _LOT_ of things on the market today - food additives, medicines, etc which have various negative health effects, some of which are long term and serious.

A normal healthy human will have XX or XY, and be either female or male respectively. They will also have two functioning eyes, two arms, two legs etc. This makes up the vast majority, and it's what nature is *trying* to produce unless an anomaly occurs.

Anyone who falls outside of this definition is handicapped, either through genetic defects or through external factors.

They do.
Eggs here are labelled as "from caged hens" or "free range". Meat is similarly labelled depending on the type of animal it came from.

The post-slaughter processing is generally limited to cutting into smaller pieces for whole cuts of meat, but absolutely any processed meat should have the processing detailed and many processed meats are pretty disgusting.

Yes, but it's a lot more expensive to float stuff on water and extract electricity from it. It *MIGHT* be worthwhile, but it would be more difficult.

There will be some. Every side has it's nuts. But deserts created by human actions can justifiably be remedied by human actions.

OTOH, ecology is complex. It's quite possible that this, which seems beneficial, may not be. That's not the way I'd bet, but I'd be a fool to deny the possibility. (But irreversible, in this context, is silly)

IIUC, that area was explored (by the US) during one of the periodic droughts, It ended. A while later another occurred, leading to "the dust bowl". Etc. And currently I believe they're pumping water from deep under ground, faster than it's being replenished.

It's quite possible that the best use of that land is buffalo grass and buffalo, as the grass has roots that go deep, but don't extract more water than is available on the average. (I suppose cattle are an alternative to buffalo, but buffalo can pretty much take care of themselves. Of course, they don't notice fences.)

FWIW, watermelons evolved in a desert. They were domesticated BECAUSE they were a source of water during the dry season.

Now, granted, what we call watermelons have changed a lot from their ancestors.

It's both. He's intentionally spamming the politicians as a form of activism.