Google is measuring water use by a different standard than everyone else:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F20...

People vote, but their districts are so Gerrymandered it doesn't matter. Republicans are now cranking that up even more, at Trump's specific direction, starting with Texas in attempt to get 5 more Republican House seats. Democrat/Blue states, like California, are now forced to "fight fire with fire" by doing the same. Though, to be fair, Texas politicians rammed this through w/o any input from constituents while California is putting it on the ballot and letting its citizens decide. Republicans are acting like they'll never be out of power -- and have forgotten, or are ignoring, that what goes around, comes around; what's good for the goose... etc...

Not yet anyway. Two states over, Oklahoma will require teachers from NY, CA to prove they back 'America First'. So how long until (some, probably Red) states decide to shield residents from information on the Internet they find objectionable? Slippery slope ...

From that article...

And you have the gall to compare trying to curb the spread of literal lies and falsehoods with the deportation of protestors who want to prevent a genocide?

It sounds to me like you're talking more about privately owned corporations, which are definitely about protecting yourself from liability (and ensuring that the performance of contracts survive an individuals death, among other things); while the parent is likely talking about publicly traded corporations, which it is reasonable to say are about making money. I say it's reasonable because the voting shareholders, in all likelihood, have one thing in common: they want the corporation to profit so that they can profit. So the board of directors who are appointed by the shareholders make that the mission, and appoint a CEO who will make that the mission. The practical result is that most corporations are about making money. In theory, the shareholders could pass a motion at an AGM giving more specific direction and priorities to the board of directors, but that's not the culture of business and investing at this juncture.

Since the french "right" proposed cooling government buildings and schools in France, the left is, of course, opposing it. They claim air conditioning is "far right".

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fidee...

AC penetration in France is very small, only 7% of french houses have one. The mortality rates in Europe soar over 150% during heat waves.

Yes, that would probably help. But so would banning Video Games, and Movies, TV, and the internet entirely. People would read more if that was the only form of entertainment. But I don't think that's the way to do it, even if it would work.

I think it has to do with what people value, which is a cultural paradigm more than anything. For as long as I have been around; I have never thought of reading as being "popular". You most likely didn't grow up seeing the "cool kids" curled up with a book over recess. You probably didn't go to high school and look for the popular kids in the library. If you wanted to be someone who read, you really had to pursue it on your own; or as one of the "smart" kids- and unless the times have changed, being a smart kid was not typically associated with being popular. Again, this is a cultural paradigm that needs shifting if we want to encourage reading amongst more people.

A citation is just a reference to an older piece of work. Nearly everyone cited in a paper has no connection to it, other than the fact that their past research was useful or relevant to points being made in the paper. If you mean reviewers past work shouldn't be on the citations list, that's often not very possible. I mean, you need an expert in the field to review the paper and such a person usually has a publication that your own paper relies on .. especially when publishing at the top tier level .. the reviewer needs to be top tier as well.

This guy is completely disconnected from reality

How many major breakthroughs are needed before we actually get a truly useful one?

We've been needing this revenge ever since they went crazy and attacked people at a seaside town in California back in the 1960s.

Agreed, though bill/reply due dates would need to be adjusted accordingly to account for the slower delivery schedule

FedEx and UPS, etc... are not required to deliver to every/any address, like USPS is.

Senders have to pay for those to be delivered, so they generate revenue. Still, seems like once a week for those would be fine - a dedicated junk mail day, perhaps.

I agree we'll see more stories like this, but that isn't quite the understanding I came away with from this article. I'm under the impression that it is not merely the case that the AI solution didn't live up to expectations (though that may also have been true), but that AI was being used as a red herring to justify cutting a huge chunk of the workforce and replacing them with cheaper labour (by outsourcing). From the summary: "The union also alleged that CBA was hiring for similar roles in India, Bloomberg noted, which made it appear that CBA had perhaps used the chatbot to cover up a shady pivot to outsource jobs." I understand that this is little more than an allegation, but as they say "Where there's smoke..."

Following up on the "coal was king" part ...

A coal-fired plant in Michigan was to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1m a day "in operating costs, ... that midwest residents will have to meet through their bills." The Michigan grid operator MISO stated that it had “adequate resources to meet peak demand this summer” without the coal plant in operation.

Why? Because ... /. (sigh)