"...disastrous feedback mechanism whereby increases in global temperatures will trigger massive new carbon releases in a cycle that may be impossible to break."
This isn't empirical science, this is eschatological religion.
For the last ~3 million years, this planet has gone through spikes of sudden warming, followed by spikes of sudden cooling, about every 120k years. The last one was... about 120k years ago.
It may be doing this again, or it may be anthropogenic.
For it to be anthropogenic, you'd have to explain how the previous approximately-regular cycle stopped, and assert that it was nearly perfectly replaced by human-driven mechanisms. That's not impossible, certainly, but pretty unlikely.
Instead, I think it's pretty likely that humans - famous for our egotism - find ourselves crawling up one of those spikes and naturally assume it's because of us.
Before we talk about bias in results, we have to be able to speak openly about reality without condemnation and public lynching.
If an "AI" system (ok we all know they're not actual AIs) says "black defendant X is more likely re-criminalize than white defendant Y (with almost exactly the same background), parole Y but do not parole X"...there are two possibilities.
Possibility 1 is that the system has derived its data from biased human sources, and thus is reflecting an anti-black bias. Possibility 2 is that X really is more likely recriminalize based on objective data.
Are we prepared to accept possibility 2 if that's what the DATA says is the fact? I don't see that we are.
Until we're ready to really face truth no matter how uncomfortable it is, we aren't really ready to judge the accuracy of 'objective systems' much less put in DELIBERATE "counter bias" to deflect results we don't prefer.
Because, simply, Alfred Nobel didn't think it worth having a category.
"On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."
In 1968, the Swedish State Bank added Economics 'in memory of Nobel' and they are announced together, but technically it's not really a Nobel Prize.
It would certainly be within the realm of possibility that some super-rich guy endowed such an award, and then there'd be one. But hey, there aren't any tech guys with $billions lying around, are there?
"About three quarters of all honey worldwide is contaminated with pesticides known to harm bees"
Of course, one might also point out that at least half, if not more, of earth's population has food and is alive ALSO because of pesticides, generally.
It's a little incongruous that the OP is suggesting* the UK could imprison people for *looking* at terrorist content, while (it seems at least from across the Atlantic) that you can't swing a dead cat in London without hitting firebrand Muslim clerics openly calling for the destruction of the west.
*these sorts of posts are always bordering on the histrionic - "this is being considered" becomes "this has been made into law"
"...could be paired with solar panels..." So the don't actually have solar panels for them, then? In which case the question would be, what real value shipping chargeable batteries to a place with no electricity?
Wouldn't any generation capacity already be at use in critical functions, ie no spare time to run to charge these things?
...California would therefore ban all heavy construction as well?
Precisely how are you going to build a highway, or dam, or large building without heavy equipment like bulldozers and dump trucks, or do they believe those can be electrical too?
Headlines like the linked one from the Guardian: "Oil heartlands of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Doha and Iranâ(TM)s coast will experience higher temperatures and humidity than ever before on Earth..." (bullshit 'fact' boldface mine).
When, in fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... shows that temperatures in the relatively recent past have also been rather hotter, not to mention MOST of Earth's history being warmer than now...including the bulk of human habitation/evolution.
This sort of histrionic fear is precisely what the AGW enthusiasts are trying to engender.
....the only people idiotic enough to pay a boutique phone price like an Apple, are people deeply invested in brand-identification.
There's a reason the Volkswagen W8 bombed so spectacularly: people dumping piles of $ on anything need other people to constantly RECOGNIZE that they've done so.
Who would want to be their new CEO, considering the title pretty much just means "the guy that will need to testify to Congress while the company is torn apart by class action suits".
Is that the same liberals that wants to ban free speech when it disagrees with their "approved" belief set, that throws water bombs filled with urine or bottles filled with cement? Those liberals?
Or the liberals who cheerfully destroy the careers of comic artists who commit the unpardonable din of drawing a sexualized image of a woman in the cover of a comic book?
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the very first sentence:
"...disastrous feedback mechanism whereby increases in global temperatures will trigger massive new carbon releases in a cycle that may be impossible to break."
This isn't empirical science, this is eschatological religion.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For the last ~3 million years, this planet has gone through spikes of sudden warming, followed by spikes of sudden cooling, about every 120k years. The last one was ... about 120k years ago.
It may be doing this again, or it may be anthropogenic.
For it to be anthropogenic, you'd have to explain how the previous approximately-regular cycle stopped, and assert that it was nearly perfectly replaced by human-driven mechanisms. That's not impossible, certainly, but pretty unlikely.
Instead, I think it's pretty likely that humans - famous for our egotism - find ourselves crawling up one of those spikes and naturally assume it's because of us.
...and that seems to be a serious problem.
Before we talk about bias in results, we have to be able to speak openly about reality without condemnation and public lynching.
If an "AI" system (ok we all know they're not actual AIs) says "black defendant X is more likely re-criminalize than white defendant Y (with almost exactly the same background), parole Y but do not parole X"...there are two possibilities.
Possibility 1 is that the system has derived its data from biased human sources, and thus is reflecting an anti-black bias.
Possibility 2 is that X really is more likely recriminalize based on objective data.
Are we prepared to accept possibility 2 if that's what the DATA says is the fact?
I don't see that we are.
Until we're ready to really face truth no matter how uncomfortable it is, we aren't really ready to judge the accuracy of 'objective systems' much less put in DELIBERATE "counter bias" to deflect results we don't prefer.
...he could have responded with "He says he has Level 5 AI with radar and cameras? How many people have died in Teslas relying on their AI, again?"
Because, simply, Alfred Nobel didn't think it worth having a category.
"On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."
In 1968, the Swedish State Bank added Economics 'in memory of Nobel' and they are announced together, but technically it's not really a Nobel Prize.
It would certainly be within the realm of possibility that some super-rich guy endowed such an award, and then there'd be one. But hey, there aren't any tech guys with $billions lying around, are there?
Aren't we pretty sure it's Trump's fault?
Or the Russians?
Or Global Warming. Ah...that works "storms" = global warming. NOW I can fit this news into my preconceived worldview.
"About three quarters of all honey worldwide is contaminated with pesticides known to harm bees"
Of course, one might also point out that at least half, if not more, of earth's population has food and is alive ALSO because of pesticides, generally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Brian Aldiss
....but only after a lifetime of being shat upon by the rest of us.
It's a little incongruous that the OP is suggesting* the UK could imprison people for *looking* at terrorist content, while (it seems at least from across the Atlantic) that you can't swing a dead cat in London without hitting firebrand Muslim clerics openly calling for the destruction of the west.
*these sorts of posts are always bordering on the histrionic - "this is being considered" becomes "this has been made into law"
If you can't tell the difference between "actual care" and "politically useful excuse", I can't explain it to you.
"...could be paired with solar panels..."
So the don't actually have solar panels for them, then?
In which case the question would be, what real value shipping chargeable batteries to a place with no electricity?
Wouldn't any generation capacity already be at use in critical functions, ie no spare time to run to charge these things?
Isn't one of the anecdotal conclusions of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem substantially that you cannot prove a system from within it?
I'm not sure I understand how they feel they're able to get around that.
Maybe this will seem callous, but at 7.5 billion of anything, a few hundred of that thing don't objectively matter much to the whole.
Did you make this same flippant response after the Bataclan massacre in Paris?
I believe 89 people died there, and Paris gun laws are plenty strict. It's almost like crazy murderous people don't care about the gun laws.
So...are you a good corporate citizen, or a corporate tool?
Are you about freedom and open expression? Or are you going to toe the line when it might cost you some of your $billion$?
...California would therefore ban all heavy construction as well?
Precisely how are you going to build a highway, or dam, or large building without heavy equipment like bulldozers and dump trucks, or do they believe those can be electrical too?
And this, kids, is what FUD creates.
Headlines like the linked one from the Guardian: "Oil heartlands of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Doha and Iranâ(TM)s coast will experience higher temperatures and humidity than ever before on Earth..."
(bullshit 'fact' boldface mine).
When, in fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... shows that temperatures in the relatively recent past have also been rather hotter, not to mention MOST of Earth's history being warmer than now...including the bulk of human habitation/evolution.
This sort of histrionic fear is precisely what the AGW enthusiasts are trying to engender.
*that is, for the "life" of Equifax...which is probably measured in weeks at this point.
....the only people idiotic enough to pay a boutique phone price like an Apple, are people deeply invested in brand-identification.
There's a reason the Volkswagen W8 bombed so spectacularly: people dumping piles of $ on anything need other people to constantly RECOGNIZE that they've done so.
Who would want to be their new CEO, considering the title pretty much just means "the guy that will need to testify to Congress while the company is torn apart by class action suits".
^ and this, kids, is how an American "liberal" responds to someone disagreeing with them.
See? "Open minded", clearly.
Wait, you're suggesting that people and companies should do their own thing, instead of routing it through the federal government ?
What a crazy idea!
But...how in heavens could anything get accomplished if the government's not running it?
Is that the same liberals that wants to ban free speech when it disagrees with their "approved" belief set, that throws water bombs filled with urine or bottles filled with cement? Those liberals?
Or the liberals who cheerfully destroy the careers of comic artists who commit the unpardonable din of drawing a sexualized image of a woman in the cover of a comic book?
Because it isn't a human right?
You can't just wave your hand and assert that a limited resource is a "right".
It's hard to believe the internet would hyperbolize something just for fun.