TFA used a large increase in fire carbon deposits about 50,000 years ago which was decoupled from normal weather (wildfire) patterns.

Yes

We are all immigrants (except the few remaining original inhabitants who we haven't killed.)

I can testify from personal experience that the standard method of cutting through the sternum to open the chest is the worst part of heart surgery. Takes forever to heal and you shouldn't use your arms for months to prevent it from opening up again until healed.

I'm using third-party ink in my Brother all-in-one. Only real drawback is that the built-in ink level meters do not work, you need to go to the iPrint&Scan app.

A 60% discount on ink is worth it.

Not many other manufacturers tolerate third-party supplies well.

I think selection via harvesting is being mistaken for evolution. And I doubt marine biologists can precisely judge age by size/weight. Either way, overfishing will have to stop.

That's normal. The whole world 'poached' Atlantic Salmon between Greenland and Norway, Greenland and Canada, all in international waters of course. The Russians actually fished salmon with factory ships that produced meal for livestock, a horrible waste. The Japanese and Norwegian fleets harvested salmon for food, understood. Overfished and struggling to spawn in polluted US rivers, the wild stock dwindled. The Connecticut, Hudson, Merrimack, Kennebec, and Penobscot Rivers saw thousands of fish, teeming, each season. In the 90s the runs could be numbered in the tens of fish in the northern rivers, the Hudson and Connecticut no measurable runs at all. Pollution was the greatest problem, and as that was addressed, the overfishing resulted in virtually no fish spawning. Restocking will take decades to establish a sustainable population. This is a lesson for the Banks fisheries, recovery will take decades. Recovery is slow.

The general goal of Georges Bank fisheries management has been to protect juvenile fish and extra-mature fish, permitting more spawning and thereby increasing the sustainable catch. American fisherman have largely complied, but the Exclusive Economic Zone is regularly violated by fishers of other nations. And every reduction in catch is fought as further penalty for commercial fisheries. They really need to reduce the catch for a decade, defend the EEZ, and make further instruments in research and marine biology. I'm not hopeful.

More likely, the MBA *&($#)es look at the outcomes, ROI, and impacts, and if the AI bots serve the customer sufficiently, that is how they will proceed. Not many of these MBA whatever's survive if they think their idea results in less success. Are they sometimes wrong? Well, so are you. And me. Mistakes by some of us mean no new cell phone this year. For others, their mistakes mean a great deal more. Still mistakes. I await your infallible process.

Some of their products look like and act like AI. If they can successfully use their own products to deliver, I think that's a good measure of the value.

Even if you cut down the wrong tree, if you do so efficiently, you prove the process works. Right thing, wrong way, well, the next tree cutting project will go better. Your saw is not the problem.

No the other end of the equation is a fork. More time to resolution, or less time to resolution.

Neither is necessary, the first step is migration to new technology. Now Salesforce can focus on improving performance, or possibly reducing costs further. If you're optimizing a programmable, non human process, you're relieved of the costs of employment. Now you manage the costs of processing bits, managing the whole of it, and adapting to changing circumstances. Not necessarily cheaper than having people doing the work, but that's a learning process.

Upfront costs of developing these AI processes will not be reflected in this quarter's earnings. Between that and the time lag of reducing now-superfluous staff, you will have to wait for the increased profits to justify your outrage that this business is now more efficient.

Efficiency often results in profits. Sometimes it results in reduced income due to competition, market retractions, and possibly lost sales from customer dissatisfaction. It's not even that simple in reality.

I would contend there is a difference between evolution and commercial selection. Wild Atlantic salmon have so overfished that they are within real risk of extinction. yet the farmed fish are now 'different' from the wild population, they have no discernable spawning urge, no selection of a specific river to spawn in. When they escape and join schools of wild salmon, they follow along to the Atlantic coast, and there get confused. And there are other interesting problems. That is not evolution, it is an interference in evolution.

So I submit, limiting harvest of a species of fish to certain sizes is not an evolutionary pressure, unless it is proven that these fish no longer grow much past the upper limit of size. When we no longer see cod much larger than that maximum size. we can assume they have evolved to not grow up to catchable size, and so no larger specimens are found. I doubt that has happened. And I doubt it will. There is still a good outcome for cod that succeed in avoiding capture long enough to grow much larger. This is happening in the striped bass population. Evolution be damned.

They can keep spawning with limited danger from humans. Poachers, illegal catch, all threats. Minimized hopefully.

Much better management of these finifsh resources run up against commercial interests. Fishermen need to make a living. Some are part of multigenerational enterprises. Hard to put them out of business, though that has been attempted several times.

I think it is indistinguishable from the selection of older, larger fish not escaping the net. No other genetics required.

Now show me that the population is markedly not growing pas that minimum size, and to show it is not caused by catch selection...