It doesn't matter how big a reactor is or isn't, it's a target.

Flying shaped charges are cheap and feasible.

Micro-reactors create more nuclear waste per amount of power generated than do standard reactors. But there are special use cases where they would be preferable.

Well, the army is probably only significant to it's neighbors. Transporting lots of troops is difficult and expensive. The navy and the air force, however...not to mention the hypersonic missiles.

Don't Look Up

When talking about people and environmental effect, the general rule is "your model is too simple". Probably both have a common cause AND there is some direct effect. And also something the study didn't consider (though nobody knows what..perhaps air pollution or micro-plastics).

In a literal sense you are correct...and even understating the case. In common usage, though, "processed food" refers to food that's had a lot more processing that that. The problem is that the term is so vague that it has no precise meaning. Cooking a steak is processing food. So is cutting it off the steer. Even draining the blood before you cut it off is processing. So is washing a carrot.

It's a term that has no precise meaning except as derivable from context...and that limits the precision unless the context is quite explicit.

My guess was that the effect was small enough that at one a day it was hard to disentangle from noise, so they didn't even look at any smaller amount.

OTOH, the headline is clearly not supported by the study. They only tested some kinds of processed meat. If their causal theory is correct, they may not have needed to test a wider range, but it might be wrong.

Food science is complex and difficult. You should always be skeptical of popularizations of it. They always oversimplify. (Actually, that doesn't just apply of "food science", but rather to all science reporting, and probably to all reporting.)

It's not really clear to me what "processed meat" means. (Well, perhaps the article explains, but I'm not that interested.) It clearly means hot dogs (all varieties?), and probably all lunch meats. (It seems to be looking at "sugar added" meat-food products.) So it likely includes bacon. It's not clear to what extent they were looking at nitrite-added processed meat, like ham. But I wouldn't think that hamburger purchased raw would be included.

Hurricanes often hit Florida, so blaming hurricane damage on "climate change" is clearly a gross oversimplification. It probably made the hurricanes worse, but it's not a binary switch. Similarly for a lot of those things. And there are probably some places where climate changes improved things. (A lot fewer, I'll admit.)

This piece strikes me an as oversimplification, probably for political reasons. Yes, a lot of disasters were made worse by climate change. I suspect that pine beetles have continued to spread north, as winter die-offs are curtailed. Etc. But most of the changes are incremental. And much of that "investment" needed to be done anyway.

This is yet another predictable side effect of people misunderstanding the stimulus and response reflex of capitalism: Apply dollars, make things happen more.

I have played a handful of FTP games and put a not insignificant amount of time into them... but never any money. If I don't get to own the thing, defined by being able to use it (not even "as I see fit", just at all — but on my schedule) then I won't pay more for the thing than it's worth to me right now, like going to see a movie. If I don't get the server, or if there's DRM which requires activation, that severely reduces what I'll pay.

LLMs invent invalid moves. It is somewhat miraculous that they can sometimes generate valid ones, but the real miracle is that people think there is intelligence there. It's a miracle for the people selling "AI" anyway.

It's very common for mechanics to be required to provide their own tools.

It's California law that you cannot require an employee to provide their own tools, unless you are paying them at least twice the minimum wage. This is true in general, not just for auto shops. I worked in an RV shop. I had to provide my tools. I got in a wage dispute over it. I received a settlement.

Only the low-end guys in the shop don't typically have to provide tools.

"No. That is a rare skillset."

It's less rare now than ever before, and becoming less rare thanks to howtos and cheap equipment.

Anthropic's recent test of having a AI run a small business suggests that CEOs are safe this year.

Whether it's a "work in progress" or "useful tool" depends on which AI you're talking about, and what task you're considering. Many of them are performing tasks that used to require highly trained experts. Others are doing things where a high error rate is a reasonable tradeoff for a "cheap and fast turn-around". But it's definitely true that for lots of tasks even the best are, at best, a "work in progress. So don't use it for those jobs.

OTOH, figuring out which jobs it can or can't do is a "at this point in time for this system" kind of thing. It's probably best to be relatively conservative. But not to depend on "today's results" being good next month.