they really should nail down the science on this first. but then again, i heard putin cured cancer.

i thought yahoo was a porn site. we used toronto freenet, which was kinda of a menu based system, buy allowed searches for things like nude images. i didn't know what search meant, but there in the list of nude images sites, was yahoo over and over again, and it made sense. that would be a great name for a porn site. anyways, we'd spend way too much time downloading big text files and uudecoding to show a scan of a playboy centerfold.

you are confusing electricity production with total 'energy' produced. the article is about the former.

we are about 85% via nuclear, hydro and renewables. and surprisingly, not too many Cdns are aware of this, and are shocked or disbelieve the figures.

i was being sarcastic. my point is how ridiculous things have gotten in the world with scientifically illiterate people forming options outside of their mental capacities and knowledge. i know there would be no danger of the Pb in this material, but i have some knowledge of the industrial uses of Pb.

I saw Pb in the article. this will doom the technology. who wants lead in anything. can you imagine, trying to save the world with this tech (assuming it can work in our everyday lives), but the protestors and gov't will cite it's cancer and neurological impacts.

two items stand out, one is 44 years and the other is the omission of error bars. 44 years is being presented as a long term. i saw the graph of overlaid daily temps and it looks very precise. are there no potentials for errors in the graph? is it possible that we are we within the upper end of a normal range? i'm not a climate change denier, btw.

per "Basically what we're trying to do is amplify what's considered good behavior and then de-amplify what's considered bad behavior"... is this scary to anyone? who considers the behavior? as for biases, if you think about evolution, biases are part of nature, and in this, our world adapts and moves forward. we may not like all the biases though. when one suppresses a natural truth, then the system is diminished.

if genetics from two homosexuals are combined and there are 'homosexual' genes, then wouldn't the baby be very likely homosexual? how does everyone feel about this? in terms of natural selection, is homosexuality more fit than heterosexuality? what are the downsides?

i wish they would remove the battery draining feature of windows 11. i have a normal windows 11 install, and normal lenovo x1 carbon laptop. had about 4+ hours battery life with win10, now i'm lucky to get 2 hours. screen recording is good, i guess. could they not have prioritized this issue?

this study shows the quantity of wallets in a gain or loss position. what it doesn't show is the $$ losses. someone buying at 60k has lost 44k. someone who bought at 10k has made 6k. the 1 gain offsets the one loss, however, the net difference is 38k. there have been many more $$ losses in bitcoin. you can also look at the volume and guess that a certain percentage of buyers above 20k are still holding. since this is a speculative 'asset', that % is going to be pretty low, but probably 20-30%, meaning the average bitcoin buy and hold types are in at around 30k, very roughly.

is this not: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.youtube%2Fnews-and-... announced 4 months ago? i can't read the paywalled FT article

Before reading this headline, I would have guessed that the level was about 50%. was the headline supposed to surprise the reading?

it's sentient if it starts a conversation without being programmed to do so.

we all know where this is going. they'll begin taking all the radioactive waste up to the moon, the waste explodes, moon leaves orbit, taking the moon colony with it. bye bye moon.