It’s pretty public knowledge by now. If you search “ExxonMobil climate prediction” I’m sure you can find a starting point. I recommend finding all the Exxon papers because they’re quite eye opening.

So what are we supposed to do, halt all space flights until we figure this out?

Without further research going into how much damage it’s doing there’s no way to say what our next steps should be. Maybe everything we’re doing is still within acceptable limits? Maybe we need tighter regulation on materials going into space. Maybe some materials need to be outright banned.

The only reasonable thing we can do is study it further. Expecting instant result based on one study that only outlines a potential risk is quite frankly just doomerist behavior.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending corporations here. I’m simply stating the fact that climate change denial wasn’t the case of waiting until it’s “fully confirmed”, it was pretty much confirmed back in the 70s. They even had predictions for the next century on how things will go bad if nothing is done and the last time I checked we were pretty on course with their predictions. When it came to the scientific consensus, it was pretty much “fully confirmed”. It was simply the public opinion where it wasn’t “fully confirmed” because corporations deliberately ran disinformation to make it seem like scientists didn’t know what they were talking about.

But this paper isn’t really confirming anything. The paper itself says that the model does not account for all the factors and to literally quote the paper:

As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study.

This paper is not presenting a final conclusion, it’s presenting concerns that need further studies. let’s wait for further studies and if there’s scientific consensus about it being an issue I’m all for bringing out the pitchforks. In the mean let’s keep calm and dread over the doom and gloom that is climate change.

We were in the “we don’t know if we’re causing it” phase for a long time because big oil knew about global warming and deliberately ran disinformation campaigns so they could keep profiteering. Had Exxon done the right thing in the 70s we wouldn’t have this looming crisis.

I guess that’s the downside of not having a miniature reactor in your phone.

Luckily user replaceable batteries are coming with an EU regulation some time within the next 5 years, but so far fairphone is the most repairable phone you can have. I don’t think you can replace mobo or chipset, but it does allow replacing quite a few things. For me the 3 most important ones are battery, charging port and screen, as those are the most likely for me to get worn out or broken. I haven’t bought it yet because my current phone is still somewhat chugging along, but my next phone will definitely be a fairphone.

Interesting about about 2k, to give a nice round number.

Voyagers is estimated to have insufficient power for communication by 2032, so from its launch we’ll get a rounded 60 year battery life. Fairphone doesn’t have plutonium batteries (though that would be pretty cool) but you can replace batteries. Let’s say you replace the battery every 2 years which means you need 30 batteries. At 40€ a piece the cost of batteries is 1200€(and you get one extra battery with the phone). Add in the cost of the phone with the delivery of phone + 30 batteries and it comes out to about 2k.

Yeah. I’d totally buy an $800 million phone.

Realistically you can buy something like a Fairphone that lets you replace most parts that wear out or get damaged, which definitely increases the overall longevity of your phone. Or that CAT phone that’s supposed to be super durable if you’re prone to breaking your phone. Or if smart phones aren’t your deal you can maybe find the old reliable Nokia 3210, that phone does not break and the battery can be replaced.

If you have phone longevity issues then stop buying phones that are not designed to be used for a long time.

That’s like saying 14 lashes is more favorable than 15 lashes.

And the denazification claim was a stupid one in the first place because how does Russia verify that Ukraine is denazified? If Ukraine kicks out of the government all the suppose nazis, is Ukraine denazified? What if they all denounce nazism. Does that count? What’s stopping Russia from putting more people in their “nazi” list? It was a vague demand and shouldn’t have been a demand in the first place.

The company I work at “supports” Linux in the sense that you’re allowed to use Linux but then you’re essentially on your own when it comes to solving problems. I asked why there’s no proper Linux support and the short answer was “it’s too much trouble”. The long answer was “don’t ask. I don’t want to get into it”.

So my guess is that setting up company wide policies and support for Linux is significantly more work than it is for Windows or Mac.

And what exactly does Hamas gain by dragging it out?

The movie actually doesn’t care if the asteroid was sent by the bugs, was a false flag or just really unfortunate circumstances because it doesn’t matter. What matters is how the government reacts and the government instantly presents it as an attack.

It’s like with WW1 the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is presented as the reason the war started, but really countries were just looking for an excuse to start a war. Buenos Aires didn’t really matter because Earth was just looking for an excuse to start a war.

But how do you know humanity is being attacked or that the bugs will destroy humanity? Just like you say everything else is speculation that is also speculation. It’s also a speculation that the only thing saving humanity is the military. For all we know we’re actually the attackers and bugs are just defending their homes and if we never attack there wouldn’t be a conflict.

You can’t just take away the whys and hows and say it’s pro war. It’s satire, if you remove all the nuance then of course it’s going to be pro war. The whys and hows make this an anti-war movie.

You’re missing the satire. It’s a satirical anti-war movie. At face value everything in the movie makes sense, the bugs attacked and we’re fighting for our survival. But you really need to take a deeper look at the movie. How do we know the bugs attacked first? The government told us. What do we know about the government? The government promotes a militaristic class society where the only way to be a citizen is to join the military. You regularly see people who have lost limbs, how did they lose them? It’s not a peaceful society, otherwise people in military service wouldn’t lose limbs. You dig and dig and eventually you would have to question what the movie shows you. You can’t really be certain that the bugs attacked first because all you know is what the government tells you and that its in the interest of that government to have this war.

And the movie even backdrops that the war effort is not on the side of humanity. Towards the end of the movie roughnecks get reinforced and those reinforcements are literally children. You don’t send children as reinforcements unless you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. It’s a very clever hint that humanity is actually losing that war.

It’s like people have completely forgotten that fact. That snippet was at the very end of a 30 minute Bethesda presentation that had Fallout 76 with its multiplayer being a significant move away from their traditional formula, Elder Scrolls Blades (which is a mobile game nobody remembers) and the reveal of Starfield, a completely new franchise. Of course fans are going to question where is TES 6.

And a few months later Blizzard showed what happens when you don’t tease Diablo 4 after revealing Diablo immortal.

So that you can find that one porn video you watched six months ago that really got you off but you don’t remember how you found it.

Because of a lot of things. From graphics side RTX and DLSS left AMD catching up (even if RTX isn’t really that big of a deal now), then there was Nvidia cards being better at crypto mining and now it’s Nvidia cards being better at AI computation + Nvidia pivoting into AI hardware space…

If you want to boil it down to the undeniable, it’s that Nvidia is just better at marketing. Everyone knows what Nvidia is doing. What is AMD doing? Besides playing catch-up to Nvidia.

That’s a matter of perspective. I took the other persons comments as “Don’t take away my chatGPT, change the regulations if you must but don’t take it away”, which is essentially the same as “get rid of regulation”.

Realistically I also don’t see this killing LLMs since the infringement is on giving accurate information about people. I’m assuming they have enough control over their model to make it say “I can’t give information about people” and everything is fine. But if they can’t (or most likely won’t because it would cost too much money) then the product should get torn down. I don’t think we should give free pass to companies for playing stupid games, even if they make a useful product.

Agree to disagree. Regulations exist for a purpose and companies need to follow regulations. If a company/product can’t existing without breaking regulations it shouldn’t exist in the first place. When you take a stance that a company/product needs to exist and a regulation prevents it and you go changing the regulation you’re effectively getting rid of the regulation. Now, there may be exceptions, but this here is not one of those exceptions.

You do know the R in GDPR literally stands for Regulation? There’s already a regulation that chatGPT should follow but deliberately doesn’t. Your idea isn’t to regulate, it’s to get rid of regulation so that you could keep using your tool.