I love Russian trolls. If you are attacking another country and your mercenaries are literally imitating SS uniforms, you don't have to ask if you are the baddies.

A good flood risk analysis combines geophysical and statistical data. It can and in good countries is reasonable accurate for individual lots. The first part requires a detailed model of the landscape, i.e. elevation relative to the water sources in the area, ground water level, ground water flow, sediment layering, soil water capacity etc. That's all data can be survived to any desirable resolution and approximated further as needed. The flood risk analysis now puts an environmental simulation on top. That requires estimating event probabilities and for extreme weather events, is the part that is most likely going wrong. You have for example an events like "5 weeks of continuous heavy rain". It's estimate to happen one a year and the simulation shows which part of the simulation area are flooded. Those get their flood risk updated by 5%.

Why do I believe that this is pointless hyperbole and not what the data actually did?

We had flooding after massive rain falls a decade ago. Guess what happened to some of the most flooded farmland in between? New developments. Most buyers have no idea where to look for such data or are actively ignoring common sense.

I'm wondering what you consider the underlying cause here.

Deep Seek showed that you need a fraction of the resources to train models. That doesn't mean you need a fraction of the resources to handle billions of inane queries.

I don't know about your part of the world, but here natural gas turbines can be shutdown and powered up very fast (in the area of minutes). For solar, we pretty much always have a surplus in summer during the midday peak. There is currently a long debate on how to incentivize home owners with batteries to charge later in the day.

There are no cheap fossil fuels. But some fossil fuels are cheaper than others and e.g. a coal plant has a base line cost of operation, so producing some electricity over demand in anticipation of a load spike and storing it in a battery can still be economically viable. But that is pretty much the inverse direction to grid storage for renewable energies.

The funny part is that base load generation were are all the power plants that were not flexible enough to adjust to the changing demand or had high financial incentives to not change. It was *not* a good property to have.

Rust requires much more resources than all other languages on your list. In fact, it's a pain to bootstrap Rust on 32bit architectures, if it is possible at all. No, cross-compiling is not a valid answer.

More like file on sleeping pills.

Take a look at the history of GNU TLS. When they started, they managed to repeat pretty much any algorithmic bug OpenSSL and friends made years before. There is little reason to believe that all those shiny new Rust replacements won't have all kinds of bugs yet again.

To be fair, chocolate is one of the few products where the price explosion is largely only cause indirectly by US trade policies. Indirectly in so far as global warming is of course also created by the USA.

The literal expression is used by actual mathematicians that discover solutions, they "found them".

"GPT-5 found solutions to 10 previously unsolved Erdös problems" (quoted from the Twitter post) is IMO pretty clear wording...