You can't convert the numbers. To illustrate - having 800 million weekly active users does not mean they have more than 3.2 billion monthly active users. Many of these users would be counted multiple times if "converting" that way.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".

3% of the British population lives in Northern Ireland , and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them drove more than 3% in Ireland - work, business trips, visiting family, weekend getaways, holiday properties etc. We have a similar border here - Norway / Sweden - and you have a lot of that kind of traffic.

The illusion of intelligence evaporates if you use these systems for more than a few minutes.

Using AI effectively requires, ironically, advanced thinking skills and abilities. It's not going to make stupid people as smart as smart people, it's going to make smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. If you can't outthink the AI, there's no place for you.

So, we could use the renewable/carbon neutral (or negative) path .... OR .... not, but with lots of extra steps and no guarantee of success?

  "And then there's the problem of trying to stop. Because an abrupt end to geoengineering, with all the carbon still in the atmosphere, would cause the temperature to soar suddenly upward with unknown, but likely disastrous, effects... "

Just have an end to fossil-fuel use, you fucking idiots! That's a tractable challenge. That's something we have decades of experience with. Play to your strengths, humanity. Don't listen to fucking morons!!!

This seems to have been an investment scheme. Who hired an architect who is this insane?

"One recalled warning Tarek Qaddumi, The Line's executive director, of the difficulty of suspending a 30-story building upside down from a bridge hundreds of metres in the air. 'You do realize the earth is spinning? And that tall towers sway?' he said. The chandelier, the architect explained, could 'start to move like a pendulum,' then 'pick up speed,' and eventually 'break off,' crashing into the marina below."

That level of nonsense is usually restricted to a flat-Earth message board. But these folks were hired? They had no intention of delivering this project. If they wanted to deliver it, they wouldn't have hired people from the local psyche-ward.

Anyone who voted this up is disgusting.

OP is also disgusting.

Since when do people who read "news for nerds, stuff that matters" advocate for racism? Good, old-fashioned racism? The kind that started in the 16th century, and should have died there?

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

That this is a post and was moderated up is disgusting. What the hell is wrong with you?

"1) Canada has already lost its status. Its hard to see how that is Trump's fault."

It is the fault of people who cause other people to hesitate or not vaccinate. We call them anti-vaxxers.

"2) Trump has only been in office for less than a year. Its unlikely the measles outbreak is a result of any of his policies."

Trump appointed an anti-vaxxer to head the CDC. This is his policy. His actions drive this as much as RFK and other anti-vaxxers. No one seems to disagree that the folks who vote for silly policies view his silly policies as legit, and legit policies as silly. That means they are the same problem -- ignorance masquerading as a relevant choice due to people's fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The same things any flim-flam con-artist would brag about.

"3) The outbreak is all along the southwest border with large populations of people who lack access to regular health care."

Yes, it is truly sad to see how terrible healthcare is in the United States. Why do you view that as a reason to not try anything new, and give up what little is being done? We seem to agree that what exists is not satisfactory.

"Blaming anti-vaxxers is attributing way too much power to a fringe group."

Wrong. That's like saying the person who drove the car off the cliff isn't responsible, because the other people in the car could/should have wrestled the wheel away from the driver. The driver is responsible. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise (you sound brainwashed).

"Perhaps we should look at years of neglect of public health in those states instead. With millions of people lacking access to basic health care what did you expect?"

Yeah, normal people have decried the terrible state of public US health policy. The only improvement in the last 2 decades was Obama Care. What's with the Republicans taking that away? How far into the dark ages do they want us to go?

""Trump did it" has become the standard excuse for the widespread failure of our political class. You can just point the finger at Trump and pretend the problems will be solved when he goes away. So his rival politicians will spend the next three years talking about Trump instead of addressing how to make our lives better."

Like you are doing? This "point" seems weirdly self-antithetical. Trump is one part; there's also Justice/SCOTUS, Senate, Congress. All aspects of government are in government, otherwise it's not government. Seems tautological.

"Its not that there isn't a lot to criticize about Trump. Its that most of the criticism is directed at minor sideshows like this one. And I say that as a former community health worker who spent a couple years knocking on parent's doors to increase the level of MMR vaccinations in local schools. I may have run into one parent who opposed vaccination. The rest just lacked the personal resources to get their kids immunized. They had a hard time making sure their kids had breakfast and got to school."

You know, programs that provide food to those in need + vaccine resources were cut by Trump and his cabinet of doom? This "point" also illustrates that this problem is big and has many factors at play, like problems that humans have traditionally banded together to face. That's why most developed countries (just the USA abstaining) use socialized healthcare policies.

Frankly, your confused post just shows why the problem seems intractable to the occupants of the country most victimized by their own medical policies -- the current USA medical policy is rake-stepping! You have people who make more money than god from medical care profits which are in the bleeding-from-your-eyes-numbers of over ,000 markup, because no-one shops around for things like bullet extractions. It's not a service that does well in unregulated capitalism (unless you own the company selling heroin, in which case you're billionaires and don't care).

Trump is also a promoter of that. It's valid to mention the toxic effect his cabinet and policies have had during *BOTH* of his terms, because that is literally what's happening now. These are the issues we agree on, and these are things driving those issues. The learned helplessness and unwillingness to challenge ignorance you seem to suggest isn't helpful, in my opinion.

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.

From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.

The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.

The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.