The relevant part of that is that Google and the other AI companies do not believe and do not agree that information should be free. They want to be the gatekeepers to information and make a profit off that gatekeeping. The problem of course is that there is no real business model for this kind of application of AI (aside from pumping up stock prices, which may do wonders for C-suite compensation, but still is not a business model). I mean, how does it work:
1. Scrape websites for data people are looking for that is supported by ads (many of which are sold through Google)
2. Present that data to people without them having to go to the website, meaning they don't see the ads and advertisers don't pay the websites, but also don't pay Google.
3. PROFIT!

There seems to be something missing in that business model. There seem to be two main ways to actually get to step 3. One is to put the ads right on the AI landing page instead. People are going to love that! Or, another option is to force people into subscriptions for the AI services. Then what?

Aside from Ukraine, for most of the governments of what we're calling the West here, the war in Ukraine is an afterthought. For example, while certain elements in the US have raised a huge ruckus about the average $34 billion to Ukraine over 4 years, those same elements seem to have no problem with, for example, a $20 billion bailout for Argentina, tens of billions to bail out farmers suffering from tariffs, etc.

The reality is that Russia is going all out and Ukraine's supporters are pretty much just phoning it in. I mean, seriously, the US was spending $100 billion per year in Afghanistan and a similar amount per year in Iraq. Ultimately, Russia is failing fighting against just Ukraine. Can you imagine if Russia was really up against the collective West?

The war is stupid and pointless and a massive waste of lives, money, and resources.

I think you forgot to add: "... after every single power outage."

Is this a horoscope?

Yes and no. Mostly yes and the Calorie value is certainly important. Obviously the body can't run without energy and basically eats itself to try to stay alive without enough Calories. Even in regular starvation though, the lack of micronutrients can exacerbate the health issues. Then there are types of starvation where Caloric intake is high enough to keep the body going, but the lack of other nutrients can cause potentially fatal health problems. One example is so-called "rabbit starvation" (which notably is not really a problem from eating rabbit, just from only eating the lean muscle and not the skin and organs) where someone is getting basically only protein. Then there's diseases from eating only non-nixtamalized corn like Kwashiorkor and Pellagra where you may technically be getting enough food Calories, but lack of micronutrients causes your body to fail anyway.

Yep. The Romans loved their lead-based sweeteners. Just boil some grape juice in a big lead pot and collect the lead acetate. Delicious on just about everything.

I would think that, in general, it would be a square-cube ratio issue or a set of them combined with other limits. Surface area of root system versus mass of plant, for example. The constraints on the growth of the root system versus the constraints of the growth of the main body of the plant, for example. Or, to grow bigger (and be denser in Calories) the plant may need to suck up more water which, theoretically means more nutrients, but the soil is not some homogeneous reservoir of mineral water. Different nutrients will propagate through the soil and the moisture in the soil at different rates. So, change the rate of uptake and the nutrients will end up more dilute in general, but that will also happen at varying rates for different nutrients depending on factors like their solubility or mobility, rates at which other materials in the soil re-absorb them, rates of replacement from the surface weathering of rocky particles, etc. So, double the intake rate and the flow of some nutrients might nearly double, while the flow of others stays virtually unchanged. Aside from nutrient uptake, there's also nutrients produced in the plants. Once again a surface area issue. Many of those nutrients may be produced in parts of the plant that scale less relative to the mass of the plant. For example if nutrient X is produced in the leaves of the plant and the plant doubles in mass but only increases 30% in leaf surface area.

Aside from all of that, there's simple bio-regulatory processes to consider. Basically all organisms have an energy storage mechanism. Fat, other oil storage methods, carbohydrates, etc. If whatever method is used to store energy in the organism tends to have a lower proportion of other nutrients relative to Calories, then if the organism has extra energy to store, the ratio of extra nutrients to Calories of the entire organism will shift from nutrients to Calories.

So, like you said, definitely more theoretical potential to gather nutrients, but most scenarios seem to make the outcome of having fewer non-Caloric nutrients relative to calories more likely.

Others have pointed this out already, but adding my two cents anyway. It should be fairly obvious that the soil in greenhouses will often be different than the soil in fields. In nature, the minerals that plants absorb normally come from the slow breakdown of rocks. What kind of rocks can vary a lot by region. I mean, this could be the subject of several chapters from a geology textbook, if not its own entire book, but just a few examples. Soil can be in regions that were glaciated in the last ice age with extremely diverse rock from a large number of formations deposited in the ground and those will break down along with bedrock. In other locations, the only rocks in the soil will come exclusively from bedrock from the same formation breaking down. In other locations, the rocks might regularly rain from the sky as large pieces or maybe ash will fall from a local volcano. Etc., etc. Most commonly though, you have rocks in the soil and they break down over time and you get minerals that the plants suck up through their roots.

In a greenhouse, the soil is generally sifted, and sometimes it can have quite high concentrations of humus materials, etc. Now, crops growing in fields tend to get fertilizer too, because rock weathering is too slow for modern agriculture, but greenhouses plants especially will get a high proportion of their minerals from fertilizers. Those fertilizers may be varying levels of synthetic or come from crushed rock. Either way, the sources to feed them are often ones that are relatively pure and contain less of a variety of ores than most field rocks. So, the rocks in question have often been at least partially purified in some way. That includes geologic processes, but also consider that rocks like limestone or phosphate rock are often biogenic in nature. A lot of phosphate rock used for fertilizer used to be bird poop. A lot of limestone used to be shells and skeletons. The point is that you won't tend to have all that much lead in greenhouse soils versus field soils, though that can vary by region, obviously. On average though, field soil can be expected to have more available lead than greenhouse soil.

Of course, all of this assumes that your original question needs an answer anyway. No one actually said that greenhouse plants didn't have elevated lead. You're just assuming a "fact" and then assuming that the "fact" that you appear to have invented out of whole cloth somehow disproves the findings from the article.

The why is not really explained. So we can just speculate. There are a few possible factors. One of them is that it is not the effect of the CO2 on the plants directly that increases lead, but the effect on the moisture in the soil. If it becomes more acidic, both zinc and lead become more soluble and therefore plants can be expected to absorb more of both through their roots. Another possibility is that the bigger, more active plant that is being produced ends up sucking more moisture through its roots than if it had less CO2, which once again means both more lead and more zinc. The amount sucked through the roots might not scale linearly with the eventual size of the plant (there might be diminishing returns, for example, where you need 100% more moisture for 50% more growth, etc.). Of course, neither of those explanations explain lead rising while zinc drops by themselves. However, it is quite possible that lead bio-accumulates more readily than zinc (certainly true in humans, though we obviously are not plants). Certainly possible since plants actually make use of zinc as a nutrient but, as far as I know, don't make use of lead. So, that could mean that the lead just sits around confined in plant tissues, while zinc gets involved in all sorts of active processes. In that case, if the plant is using zinc, we can expect it to also be selectively absorbing it, and excreting, and/or secreting it as well. The amount of zinc retained may also not scale with the eventual size of the plant. An example of reasons for this may be that zinc is used in chlorophyll production, which is going to scale two-dimensionally with the surface area of the leaves, whereas the overall volume of the plant scales three-dimensionally.

So, various processes like that may lead to more overall throughput of both lead and zinc through the plant, but with differential retention of each relative to the volume/mass of the plant at time of harvest. This is all speculative on my part of course that presents a very basic partial hypothesis on how something like that could happen.

Well, yeah. They've been depicted in science fiction for at least what? 70+ years. There was an automatic floor sweeper in a 1939 carton Dog Gone Modern. It was more semi-humanoid, but mostly for comedic effect. This predated general purpose computing. So, quite true that IRobot didn't really originate the idea or really have much in the way of any technological special sauce.

It can be independent because it's legally independent. I mean, you might as well ask how anyone can be independent if someone can come up behind them with a chloroform-soaked rag and then toss them into the basement. Sure, the law can be broken, but the fact that it can be broken does not mean that breaking the law is not breaking the law. I can eat all the cookies on the plate when I was only supposed to get one and, sure, the fact that I broke the rules doesn't bring the cookies back, but the fact that it doesn't bring the cookies back does not mean that I didn't break the rules. I can do a lot of analogies along the same theme, but the point is that I am discussing what the rules are. I know you're not trying to gaslight, but I do want you to be aware that the argument you're making is often used in gaslighting by parties who intentionally want to devalue the very concept of having laws in the first place because they think they will benefit from lawlessness by asserting power (frequently though, much of that power they wield is based on other people following the law). For example, nations invading other nations against treaties, international law, and their own laws may talk about realpolitik or "facts on the ground" while simultaneously complaining bitterly about supposed violations of treaties, etc. against them. They try to redefine the rules Calvinball style to favor them and take from others.

So, yeah, he probably can get whoever he wants in there in violation of the law. The people he gets in their can also then do all kinds of damage in violation of the law. The courts can scramble to catch up and, several years later, close the case because the issue is now "moot" because whether it was illegal or not, it has gone beyond the possibility of a remedy.

So, yes, there are lots of things that he can do, legal or not. I refuse to just throw up my hands and say that such abuses are legal just because people might get away with them though. Also, to whatever degree possible, I think the gaping holes in the system that allow such abuses should be identified and fixed.

Well, yeah. The big problem with the Constitution that I have always complained about is that it has no teeth. Which means that it can simply be ignored and the only option to fix it is for someone to sue. Despite the fact that these are the laws of the nation and so anyone living in the nation should have standing to sue, the ability to sue is subject to rules on standing that require very direct proof of harm. As a totally hypothetical example, it is completely illegal for the US President to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in emoluments from a foreign government. The constitution is very clear on that, but it doesn't make it a felony or a misdemeanor or a civil offense with a fine (it's not even 100% certain that it would qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment). Nope, for the most part someone has to sue and that someone has to prove how the President accepting a massive emolument from a foreign government is directly relevant to them specifically. Then, even if the court accepts that they have standing, all the court can do is issue a finding and a court order... which can simply be ignored. After it has been ignored, the court can, in theory, hold someone in contempt. That runs into multiple problems though, including the fact that they have to actually find someone to hold in contempt. That could be the hapless junior lawyer who, when asked, has absolutely no idea about what's going on, who their orders come from, or who they even are, or it could be any number of steps up the chain. That means extensive discovery and pushback against the court for supposed overreach by trying to target the person who actually gave the order t break the law. Oh, and the other major problem with contempt charges is that the courts never, ever, ever, actually hold anyone in contempt... unless they're a powerless nobody on mundane charges, then it happens all the time.

That's just a little bit of the issue. So yeah, I totally get that, when it comes to the Constitution and Federal law holding the executive branch to actual law, the laws often de facto don't apply. That does not mean though that they are not being broken and that we don't observe that the laws are being broken.

So, I totally get where you're coming from. I'm still going to discuss the actual legality though.

Yep. Neat how decades or centuries of precedent, law, and reality can be altered just by editing some words on a website.

It is a commission. Commission is essentially a synonym for committee or close to it (it's basically a set/subset thing, a Committee is a subset of a Commission, though a commission can consist of just a Committee). It is under the executive branch though, rather than being a congressional committee because it has work it needs to do of the kind that clearly qualifies as executive. Rather than setting it up as a Congressional Committee then, they set it up as an independent federal commission, setting rules that are meant to shield against total control of the Commission by any one administration or political party. Congress has always had the power to do that. It's right in Article II where it makes very clear that Congress gets to decide who does the appointing of non-elected officers of the US. Article II sets the expectation that it will generally be the President making the nominations, but leaves it clear that Congress gets to decide which positions are up for nomination by the President (with specifically named potential exceptions like SCOTUS justices)

Starting with this first. My mistake. I just assumed that everyone would recognize that all the quotes I put in my comment actually are from article II of the constitution. I guess I assumed that since I literally wrote it when introducing the quotes. In any case, the executive power vested in the President is quite clearly, according to the rest of Article II, still subordinate to both the constitution and the rest of the law.

As for the rest of what you wrote, more or less accurate. However, you will note that article II does not specify in and of itself which specific minister, consul, and officer positions require nomination and then appointment with advice and consent of the Senate. Nor indeed does it even specify that the President appoints judges (other than SCOTUS). You can tell that last one because it explicitly mentions Supreme Court Justices, but does not specifically mention any other kind of judge. So, the clear interpretation there is that while, in general, appointments are part of the President's job, which appointments the President gets to make are clearly decided by the law, which the President does not make.

Note also that last quote I quoted. It makes it pretty clear that Congress can vest the appointment of inferior officers (which, since Congress decides which appointments the President gets to make means every non-elected position in the executive branch or, in other words, everyone except for the President and Vice President) in heads of departments or in the courts.

So, the theme here is that the President can, indeed, make hiring and firing decisions, but only inside the boundaries of what the Law says. Trump can say, "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as President", but that doesn't make it true. I mean, it's also a sentence that suggests that someone mentioned Article 2 to him and he latched onto the idea without actually knowing that it was from the US Constitution. I mean, referring to it that way as if it is a personal thing that he has and the odd use of "an" strongly suggests that he doesn't know.