This might be the most awfully absurd thing that could ever happen.
“We got perfectly capable humans doing that job pretending to be AIs so that we can sell more incapable AIs services, AND prevent the AI bubble from bursting. Gotta make some big $$$ out of this shit, 2008 style baby”
We were not doing it the wrong way, but we were having a different financial calculus: the goal used to be to maximize the revenue per m² of solar panels, but they have become so cheap that now we try to optimize the revenue per m² of land.
It used to be profitable to motorize panels to follow the sun. Now it is more profitable to have two panels suboptimnally placed but maximizing output per m² of land.
When I was calculating costs in anticipation of putting in solar, I played around with several online calculators. Latitude, panel orientation, and angle. I was surprised by how few extra panels were required to do "stupid installs" like vertical, horizontal, west-facing, etc.
Ya, the idea that panels have gotten cheap enough and high enough output, bifacial, etc that using them as straight up fencing is now increasing viable is absurd compared to where we were a few decades ago and we had to fight for each PV watt. Now inverting, wireing, and raw space are becoming the primary factors.
I don't think people there love love her, but something something owning the libs something.
Many USian voters are entranced with the idea of having a firebrand provocateur on their side, someone who is able to get a rise out of their political opponents (not even totally excluding myself as it can be entertaining sometimes). And others just don't care as long as the other side doesn't win -- to them, keeping the other side out of power is more important than putting a competent person in the seat.
In the US, you can either vote for every position on the ballot indvidually (dozens or more, dog catcher to prez), or you can vote "straight ticket" for the party, Dem or Repub. That's how people like her get elected.
One of the weird quirks of capitalism: doing good things that help people generally attracts more workers (since most people are empathetic and want to do good things), and the labor market then places downward pressure on wages and other benefits. Of course, this does have benefits in that we can then enjoy a larger quantity of cheap coffee, music, charity, etc. but I feel there’s got to be a better way. Especially since the inverse is true. Doing wicked things the system requires but most humans hate then demands a wage premium because fewer people are willing to do them.
This Josh guy is new, but has something about him that just gets me chuckling before a "punchline" lands. He's very dry like an NPR host, but just dark as hell every time on simple delivery and cadence of very basic words. He's not making "jokes" exactly, but his humor is definitely in his behavior and mannerisms. That slow, dead stare and slight turn into the camera when the tax guy says "you can die" was fucking gold.
There’s a fatal flaw in this that she never even addressed. In the beginning, she said she is always wearing a hat. Well, if she’s carrying a bag, she’s no longer wearing a hat! I think she needs to make the bag in a way that she can still wear the hat while it’s a bag.
Most of the times, I carry a bag or two with me when doing groceries, but sometimes I don't. Sometimes I wish I had a compact bag in my hat. But I don't wear a hat.
It was always just a distraction to divert news from asking who was stopping aid getting in, by giving them a narrative about "need to build this pier first". Sleight of hand for propagandists to exploit.
@Five She's a clown who, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, believes that because she has expertise in some areas, that she has expertise in all, and therefore her thoughts and opinions on any subject are sound and valid.
She's very confident in her positions as is NDT, but to call them clowns is harsh and unnecessary. I think it's important to be able to admit when wrong, which is what she's doing here. However you feel about her personally, the fact is that a lot of people listen to her, and this video is going to have a material impact changing some minds.
That said, I understand why her repeated climate denial was so frustrating; she was very sure she was right about climate change when she wasn't, which makes the admission quite satisfying in some ways.
But look, it's hard enough to admit fault; why make it any more difficult by being a dick about it when someone does? Taking this instance as an example, would you prefer she keep denying the problem? I know people that will never, ever admit they're wrong so I know my answer to that question.
@voracitude It's not just climate that she's been so very wrong about, and you being a dick about me calling out her clownery is quite precious.
She's done harm in more than one area, so it's going to take more than one admission for her to make amends.
Starting by clearly stating she's sharing her personal opinions on topics outside her expertise rather than presenting nearly everything she posts as our best current science would be a good start.
Please explain how I was a dick, because it was written to be a measured counterpoint and I fail to see what you're even talking about.
If you're going to explicitly call out bad takes that's all well and good, but you should be big enough to appreciate good faith retractions when they're given like this as well.
Starting by clearly stating she's sharing her personal opinions on topics outside her expertise rather than presenting nearly everything she posts as our best current science would be a good start.
I think you’re being a bit too generous. Despite the fact that this particular video was pretty good overall (though the potshot at environmental activists at the end was wholly unnecessary and the opposite of helpful) I didn’t hear any real admission that her past views were mistaken here. If what you say is true, then she needed to own up to that far more clearly than she did.
Although I have only watched a few of her videos in the past before stopping. I found them quite opinionated and misinformed. So I don’t have the full context of what exactly she got wrong previously.
I always much prefer to play at the marine resolution of what I'm playing. Not only do i want to have the same experience as of i was using the console but upscaling can often cause some oddities. Especially with 3d games whereas polygons are sharp and any 2d elements are still pixelated. I think that mismatch looks way uglier than the whole screen being pixelated.
In case you're like me and are interested in the topic but aren't interested in watching someone talk forever:
00:00:00 In this section, the narrator discusses how food conglomerates like Kraft and Kellogg's have manipulated food science and public perception to make ultra-processed foods a necessity rather than a want, leading to health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The food industry's goal is to keep the public confused about what to eat, and they have attempted to sabotage the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's process of giving nutrition advice to the American public. Ultra-processed foods, which include many breakfast cereals, frozen dinners, sauces, and yogurt, are industrially produced and designed to be irresistibly delicious. Companies use large amounts of salt, sugar, and fat to mask the off-notes of the manufacturing process and extend shelf life. Kraft, for example, marketed their singles as a health food in 2015, despite the fact that they cannot legally be called cheese. The food industry's tactics are reminiscent of Big Tobacco's lies, and the evidence linking ultra-processed foods to disease is grim.
00:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses how food companies partner with health organizations to create the illusion of endorsement for their ultra-processed foods. As research reveals the negative effects of such foods on health, food industries use various tactics to undermine the research and researchers. They cast doubt on the studies, discredit researchers, and even fund their own studies to show favorable results. The speaker also mentions the similarities between the food and tobacco industries, with food companies owned by tobacco companies until the mid-2000s and using similar misinformation playbooks. The speaker, Tera Fazzino, a psychology professor at the University of Kansas, shares her research on hyper-palatable foods, which are often produced by tobacco-owned food companies and are more likely to be addictive due to their nutrient combinations. The speaker's perspective on the addictive nature of these foods changed during her research, as she discovered that foods produced by tobacco-owned companies were 29% more likely to be classified as hyper-palatable.
00:10:00 In this section, Michael Pollan recounts a conversation with a former Philip Morris lawyer who revealed that the heads of these companies don't consume their own addictive products. Pollan explains that tobacco companies got out of the food business in the 2000s, but other non-tobacco-owned food companies took note of their successes and reformulated their products to maximize profits. The food industry now accounts for nearly 70% of the food supply, and Pollan argues that the narrative that individuals are solely responsible for overeating is a way for food companies to avoid accountability. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is currently considering the health effects of ultra-processed foods, and the Food and Beverage Issue Alliance, a trade group representing various food industries, has urged the committee to stop using the term "ultra-processed" until there is a consensus on a definition. Pollan emphasizes the importance of access to good scientific information and evidence-based dietary guidelines, as it took decades for the link between tobacco and cancer to be acknowledged and addressed.
yt.artemislena.eu
Top