If you want to read how horrible and scary the status quo is, just look at any scientific projection of current trends in 10 or 50 years.
> corporations and governments will just rely on this instead of also reducing CO2 emissions
They already rely on people wanting cheap gasoline and cheap beef and high profits to the companies that give generous political donations. So, no change in actual behavior.
Geo-engineering is already happening and has been for decades. It's just been as a side effect of industry. Doing a little bit of intentional work to counteract that is a reasonable response. Hoping that tomorrow everyone wakes up and decides to do the right thing about emissions is a fantasy.
that said, now I realized I have a door with two pictures screwed to it, because we punched a hole through it more than a decade ago during a house party, and that specific door is out of production, and it's the door to the storage room so it was (and still is) the perfect solution :)
Walmart has $22 mounts that will work for that $74 TV, and Walmart has TV installation service for $79 (basic mounting of a customer supplied TV with a customer supplied mount).
Deportation numbers can be highly misleading because of changes in how border interactions were recorded. There have been changes at various times to count as a deportation turning someone back at the border, or to count it as a refusal of entry.
Deporting 100 people working at a factory has a different economic impact than deporting 100 people at the moment they were trying to cross the border.
And other people said the Internet was a fad and a bubble and cell phones were just for people who wanted to look important and solar panels would never work.
History is full of people making wrong predictions in both directions about new technology.
As the most obvious parallel, pets.com went bust in the first dot com bust and so did webvan. Today chewy is successfully replicating pets and ordering groceries online for delivery is common.
We might see 1,000 different AI companies go bankrupt in the next few years, but still have AI be a huge chunk of the economy throughout the 2030s.
So what? A broken clock is still right twice a day.
My point is: are there more false positives or false negatives?
You're also cherry picking. Even with AI there are pretty high profile people saying it's a fad as well as pretty high profile people saying it's going to kill us all.
Look at crypto. WAS it hype? Clearly. Don't tell me the price of bitcoin, tell me how the technology actually changed the world. Tell me how it did even a tenth of what the crypto bros promised.
Look at VR. Don't tell me how much you like the latest Quest, tell me how many people are in the metaverse. Tell me how many people even own a VR system. Tell me how the tech achieved a hundredth of what was promised.
Look at Segway. When was the last time you even saw one? Have you ever even used one? How many people even know what they are?
It doesn't matter if your prediction is right if it is 1 in 1000. The Simpson has a better batting record than that and they aren't even trying. What matters is consistent predictions. Even if you believe this time is different I don't know how you can not understand why people are skeptical. In the last decade we watched people become billionaires off of VR and crypto.
Even if AI is different, people are being glamorized for their experience in crypto and VR as reasons for why they'll be successful in AI. If you believe in AI then why wouldn't you see this as a fox in the chicken coup?
Those people didn't make their billions through technology, they made their billions through hype.
You can believe AI is a bubble and full of hype even if you believe the technology has a lot of uses. It's a lot easier to build hype around a grain of truth than a complete fabrication.
Most people would think working on AI models for computer vision problems is a perfectly reasonable outcome for a STEM PhD, even if it's not a direct continuation of the thesis research.
Turning a physics PhD into any sort of modeling, statistical analysis or engineering work is pretty normal in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more physics PhDs working in finance than academia and government research labs.
The vaccine significantly reduced severity of infection, likelihood to become infected at all, and likelihood of transmitting there infection.
The side effects impacting periods were incredibly rare, mild and fully disclosed.
Children's test scores are still substantially lower now than pre-covid, likely some of that is due to brain damage from the covid virus (remember that the "brain fog" was a common symptom for weeks or months, sometimes longer) and many children died or developed serious health issues like diabetes from the virus.
But needles are scary, so some people will claim anything to justify their aversion rather than admit they have a phobia of injections.
> The vaccine significantly reduced severity of infection, likelihood to become infected at all, and likelihood of transmitting there infection.
The first was what the clinical trials tested for, the second and third were hopes that we never had confirmation of. And with how much the waves continued to spike everywhere afterwards, those two seem to have been false - that the mRNA vaccines only suppressed symptoms without reducing infection/transmission.
A female close to me experienced side effects from shedding of the vaccine. She was not initially an “anti-vaxxer.” These symptoms were absolutely not disclosed ahead of time.
I’ve seen with my own eyes people who tried to shame me for not getting the vaccine come down with COVID over and over again.
When you tell someone that their personal experience and that of their trusted friends is misinformation, you lose all credibility.
> A female close to me experienced side effects from shedding of the vaccine
There are always risks with vaccines, given you are trying to introduce an immune response to a contagion and it's no secret that the immune system can get it wrong (e.g. overreacting, attacking own tissue). It's about balancing the benefits of the vaccine with the risks. You can get the same consequences from having the disease itself, as well as the risks the disease will kill you.
The COVID shot was deployed in a little amount of time, so it's understandable that there are more notable cases of side effects, because it was deployed over months, not decades as is the case with other vaccines.
Think of it from this perspective: you made a claim but you don't have data to support it. It's easy for individuals to be prone to false conclusions because we often conflate weak correlations as causation, when often times, randomness is a better explanation, or "not sure if causation".
Children should blame their parents, half that didn’t vote for it should move. It’s never been easier to move to another state than it is now, companies will drop a box at your place, you fill it up and it appears at your new location.
> Children should blame their parents, half that didn’t vote for it should move.
Not everyone who voted is so lucky as you and I, who can have a company drop a box at our place, which I assume would be a single family or detached home (so there is a place to have the box dropped), plus the time off work to fill it up while also moving other generations of family with us to this new location hundreds of miles away that allows us to continue working with little to no down time or loss of income all while continuing on with life as though we didn't just uproot an entire family with the added bonus of their kids being ripped away from stability, friends, sport teams or garage band-mates.
> All things I have no control over, but they ultimately do.
What things are you referring to?
> Parents aren’t children, they’re _responsible_ for children.
Yes. You appear to be saying they should rip their children from generations of stability and possibly landing in a worse living situation for awhile as they now have to find new jobs and spent money they didn't have -- not referring to families that can afford this, but the many many who vote, yet can not afford to move and those who could move but not without incurring long lasting economical damage -- because the current group of lawmakers want to dump fracking water in the rivers? Is providing stability for children not also the responsibility of parents? How do you propose they do both at the same time?
Facts are facts, indeed, but bact finding is determining what the facts of the situation are, and this law makes the president the one who finds the facts. This doesn't let him declare squares to be circles, but it does pretty clearly let him declare more or less arbitrarily that a trade agreement is, in fact, disadvantageous.
Or more formally: "findings of fact" are part of the purview of the judiciary, definitionally. As always wikipedia does a good job here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact
> Facts are still different than opinions, that statute doesn't give him unchecked power to declare any crazy idea as fact.
I don't know about the president, but IIRC, juries have a quite wide latitude decide what facts they find ("In Anglo-American–based legal systems, a finding of fact made by the jury is not appealable unless clearly wrong to any reasonable person", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact).
Saying "whenever the President shall find as a fact" seems like it's giving the president the authority to determine what the "facts" are, and not putting any conditions on how he does that or subjecting them to second-guessing.
No, it's precisely the opposite. The choice of that term isn't to empower the president, it's to clarify that such a decision is a "fact" in the legal sense and thus subject to judicial review. In point of fact the page you link says explicitly that courts (and not the executive branch) are the government organ responsible for determining facts.
> corporations and governments will just rely on this instead of also reducing CO2 emissions
They already rely on people wanting cheap gasoline and cheap beef and high profits to the companies that give generous political donations. So, no change in actual behavior.
Geo-engineering is already happening and has been for decades. It's just been as a side effect of industry. Doing a little bit of intentional work to counteract that is a reasonable response. Hoping that tomorrow everyone wakes up and decides to do the right thing about emissions is a fantasy.