Technically, yes, miners and energy providers are within certain rights.
However, it seems that a lemming has popped up and seen the precipice. Now it shouts.
People aren't lemmings. People see a problem coming. Are miners lemmings? Are they too invested or too greedy to stop? Just remember, if the grid has to be upgraded upgraded upgraded upgraded it's your tax money (or else move) and what do you get out of it?.
no... the market should fix itself. This is how capitalism is supposed to work otherwise any time one sector does something stupid you need people to own up?
If you want to actually do something about school shootings? Here is 3 simple steps that would make it a LOT harder and less attractive to scumbags...1.- Give schools the same ability to push a single button and lock the place down like they have in hospitals. you'd be amazed how many schools have ancient buildings that simply cannot be locked down without some person going around with the keys. 2.- Give teachers firearms training and have them armed, look at how many teachers have given their lives protecting kids, think about how differently it could have been if the teacher had a way to defend their charges besides being a human shield
Definitely government wants to solve the problem.
But, there is more than one problem.
Have to look at all the problems together. Can suggest this or that, but these suggestions will likely be mystically not applied because there are problems that are not considered.
So what gives?
There are a couple of details to consider. Money and votes.
People have to speak up, say what they feel. This causes money spending to be acceptable. This causes politicians to say things or do things that people vote for. If the solution to the problem occurs, it might just be a side effect. The people have to say enough things about ALL the problems in order for some side effects to occur that are desirable.
Things like jobs might result in government revenues and votes in the right direction. So increased safety mechanisms lead to more jobs, That might be favorable to politicians. Compare to airport security - there wasn't time wasted implementing more of that kind of thing.
Gun control - loss of jobs in gun industry
Mental health issues or social issues, better doors and cameras, armed guards/teachers - increased jobs
Tip: if people can embrace in advance what government plans to do, the fewer mental health issues.
We could use something like that near the restrooms where I work. People are always almost bumping into each other going in and out and around tight corners to the main hallway.
On the Enterprise, the doors opened when you walk toward them.
That's the message that is being conveyed. People want to walk through. If you can see your destination, why is there glass in the way? Do you put glass in the middle of your kitchen? And if you want to tell people "don't walk this way", just leave something in the path of predictable traffic, like a nest of vipers.
Let me try to answer the question "Is social media causing childhood depression?"
Firstly I do not have empirical data, so I have to use intuition, common sense, etc.
My opinion is that social media and indeed the whole power of the internet "causes" or leads to people in general, not just kids, being smarter, more knowledgeable, more ambitious, more inspired, etc. In this line of thought, people have greater desires. The desires are broader, more conflicted, more sophisticated, and so on. Naturally, people are confronted by competition and their own limitations while seeing others succeed or fail. Ok, these are some of the psychological forces that occur in the internet world, and they will occur even if social media evolves.
The power of social media is a gateway to strife for all frequent users, not just children, though children may be least mature. Possibly exposure at a young age allows a child to absorb social media into life so long as the child has enough power against negative forces. If the child can retreat to an arms length position where an antagonist cannot physically reach the child, then the child can adapt.
Childhood vulnerability to online forces might be greatest with forces that are perceived to be positive. Overtly negative forces could prompt a child to switch the channel so to speak. Children would probably be the most easily fooled by temptations that lead deeper and deeper. Then, depression would be only one of the milder concerns.
The world is complex, and social media is a valid tool for exposing children to aspects of the world, with much needed control and guidance. There is a fine line between the vast regions of underexposure and overexposure.
Also, social media is a tool for self expression, and children need to learn how to construct as well as reach out. Even the denial of social media could lead to negative effects. Such is the complexity of society and powerful communications.
All dissatisfaction with communism and government interference aside, maybe it's time for government to build large scale cryptocurrency miners in order to reduce the energy inefficiency while earning more revenues. Government is always looking for revenues. People are always looking for a way to reduce taxes. Government is already facing the problem of building the power plants for the mining. Might as well go all the way and mine.
You'd have to be delusional to think this is an advantage.
And yet, I've seen many reports/documentaries/reviews over the years that have objectively compared SatNavs with London cabbies, and the cabbies always win, sometimes by a comically wide margin.
Having tried to navigate central London using a top-of-the-range SatNav, including all the whizzy new real-time this and traffic report that, this result does not surprise me in the slightest. The route-planning algorithms aren't even close to the same standard as a proper London cabbie, and their real-time feeds are neither accurate enough nor fast enough to know when to stick with the main route and when to divert along the back streets.
But in this tale of human intellect, why would a smart person who can do a job like this want to do it?
"A human navigator can't see ahead for optimizing against current traffic patterns as can GPS"
Really now? Anyone I have ever met knows things like, "If I don't leave in 15 minutes the 340 is going to be crowded, but I could take the 225. The 225 is longer but would end up being faster". And " since it is the holidays and there is a game that lets out soon, I'll take the 720, use high street, go through Clear Water subdivision, get on the 225 and miss the surge".
If a person is familiar with an ares, human usually wins.
Relax. A lawn chair and a bunch of drones or helium balloons, you're all set.
After Fukushima there was concern that radiation in the water could reach certain coasts at high concentration, so letting the dogs out would mean that some places can have too high a concentration.
There is one form of sequestration that might work quite well.
Surprisingly or maybe not, no one mentions it.
Quite simply, sequester the earth.
Ok, that was metaphorical. The idea has been suggested: an umbrella. There are other fears, particularly coronal mass ejections, that make a case for putting something between the sun and us to deflect the danger.
Of course, this pie in the sky is still practically, just a pie in the sky idea, and people should plan for it not to be built.
"Re-greening the desert is actually one of the most effective ways to sequester CO2"
Until the plants live their lifespan at which time they die and re-release the carbon to the atmosphere. It's like stuffing the credit card bill in the drawer, instead of paying it off.
Actual sequestration means removing the carbon from the biosphere nearly permanently----making new coal and stuffing it somewhere geologically isolated, uncombustible and undigestible.
What about centrifuging the air to separate out the co2 ?
Are there biological processes such as bacteria that really go nuts on dense co2 and then shit bricks of carbon?
Further, it is probably better to find new and increased uses for trees. Tree hugging is killing us because saving trees prevents the desire to grow trees. Just because I (as a generic person) might feel like saving a bunch of trees doesn't make me go out there and plant them. Ask any generic person what they're doing and you never hear "I'm off to plant a forest". But if I have a way to benefit from cutting a tree, I would feel like farming them. I'm sure a beaver would second that.
The problem is that there are too many trees where they should be cutting them (for example, the fires of California), and there is too much cutting versus growing in the rain forest. People think trees and forests are so big that it's all up to nature. Perhaps we have to look at ways of incentivizing people to leave the rain forests, give these people better opportunities. All easier said than done.
Surely all these people displaced by automation can return to manually plowing fields and manually harvesting? Or maybe they can run teams of horses for the carriage trade? perhaps they can connect phone calls at exchanges? Maybe they can stoke coal in the boilers of steam ships? Perhaps they can go house to house collecting the nightsoil buckets? maybe they can go around lighting the gas street lamps? Can't they act as runners for telegraph messages?
No need to worry about automation when all the jobs I just named are currently unfilled.
I'm not an American, but I'm wary too. Besides, I like driving. When the topic comes up, most people who welcome driverless cars seem to be those that hate driving or have to spend a lot of time in traffic jams.
My main concern is not safety. I worry that driving will become cost prohibitive if driverless cars have a certain amount of adoption. Insurance companies will say "use driverless, or you pay X times more". That would relegate driving to the rich. Also, it would make current cars worthless overnight. Poorer people wouldn't be able to afford personal transportation at all any more, since there won't be enough second hand driverless cars. All in all a rather bleak future in my eyes.
The slippery slope is what I see from what you are saying. Maybe the details of your scenario won't all occur, but there is a slippery slippery slipping to foresee.
The cause of the slippery slope is the thing to take note of. The hitherto playing field, not all that level anyways, will be jacked up hard and fast at one end when driverless cars are commonplace. Lots of stuff will come sliding down. In that future world driving a car used to be something requiring a higher organism, but no longer. When that domino falls, many others will.
Use AMD chips because they actually are immune to Meltdown and have already mitigated Spectre at the Microcode and OS level with a negligible impact on performance. Intel has yet to get their shit together and it's performance impact is growing with every new patch.
Cutting to the chase, use AMD as the fix for Intel.
I agree with you about earthquakes, but for fires few people really seem to plan well for them as even more expensive houses will get rebuilt in the same locations, controlled burns to keep vegetation in check will still not happen, and vegetation will grow back with a vengeance into eventual dry masses which will bring with it another catastrophic fire.
There is one difference that is easily not considered.
Robots.
Robotic technology is improving rapidly and will make it possible to do the grunt work of landscaping far and wide, as well as fighting fires or reducing the impact of natural disasters.
Why would anyone expect the cost of natural disasters to do anything but go up? The price of everything is going up, from real estate to building materials to labor.
Firstly, I interpret this to be saying that it's all same old same old nothing needs to change.
That is not a correct argument. The price of a single item goes up - that's inflation. But if the price of a set of items is going up, you still have to think hmm, maybe that's because the number of items in the set is increasing or the items are getting bigger. If you see smoke, you have to think fire. Ok, I didn't count whether the set is increasing but I lived through the smokiest summer last year even though I wasn't terribly close to any wildfire. The year before that I had the warmest winter in memory. This winter is shaping up to be pretty springlike too in many ways for me. But I haven't relocated for a decade, so the physical evidence points to a situation that Robocop calls "trouble".
For sure, there seems to be a pretty wacky world. People don't apathetically vote a Trump, and I hear tell he didn't even feel like being president. He might have just been trying to raise issues to higher levels of interest (or raise himself to higher levels of interest). If the world was untroubled, who would have given Trump a second glance?
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, yes, miners and energy providers are within certain rights.
However, it seems that a lemming has popped up and seen the precipice. Now it shouts.
People aren't lemmings. People see a problem coming. Are miners lemmings? Are they too invested or too greedy to stop? Just remember, if the grid has to be upgraded upgraded upgraded upgraded it's your tax money (or else move) and what do you get out of it?.
>India needs to own up
no ... the market should fix itself. This is how capitalism is supposed to work otherwise any time one sector does something stupid you need people to own up?
If you want to actually do something about school shootings? Here is 3 simple steps that would make it a LOT harder and less attractive to scumbags...1.- Give schools the same ability to push a single button and lock the place down like they have in hospitals. you'd be amazed how many schools have ancient buildings that simply cannot be locked down without some person going around with the keys. 2.- Give teachers firearms training and have them armed, look at how many teachers have given their lives protecting kids, think about how differently it could have been if the teacher had a way to defend their charges besides being a human shield
Definitely government wants to solve the problem.
But, there is more than one problem.
Have to look at all the problems together. Can suggest this or that, but these suggestions will likely be mystically not applied because there are problems that are not considered.
So what gives?
There are a couple of details to consider. Money and votes.
People have to speak up, say what they feel. This causes money spending to be acceptable. This causes politicians to say things or do things that people vote for. If the solution to the problem occurs, it might just be a side effect. The people have to say enough things about ALL the problems in order for some side effects to occur that are desirable.
Things like jobs might result in government revenues and votes in the right direction. So increased safety mechanisms lead to more jobs, That might be favorable to politicians. Compare to airport security - there wasn't time wasted implementing more of that kind of thing.
Gun control - loss of jobs in gun industry
Mental health issues or social issues, better doors and cameras, armed guards/teachers - increased jobs
Tip: if people can embrace in advance what government plans to do, the fewer mental health issues.
We could use something like that near the restrooms where I work. People are always almost bumping into each other going in and out and around tight corners to the main hallway.
You want restrooms with glass walls?
On the Enterprise, the doors opened when you walk toward them.
That's the message that is being conveyed. People want to walk through. If you can see your destination, why is there glass in the way? Do you put glass in the middle of your kitchen? And if you want to tell people "don't walk this way", just leave something in the path of predictable traffic, like a nest of vipers.
Agent 86's cone of silence
Well, well, apparently the uranium leaches from rocks in the ocean.
Suggestion: go get the rocks. The stuff in the water is chicken feed.
> > a point to prevent anyone from profiting from access to clean water.
I think the point is to prevent people from using underhanded ways of screwing with something already good for the sake of profit.
Unfortunately, access to things already good is getting scarcer. Oh, it sucks to be a selfish little shit.
Hooray, Sponge Bob
Let me try to answer the question "Is social media causing childhood depression?"
Firstly I do not have empirical data, so I have to use intuition, common sense, etc.
My opinion is that social media and indeed the whole power of the internet "causes" or leads to people in general, not just kids, being smarter, more knowledgeable, more ambitious, more inspired, etc. In this line of thought, people have greater desires. The desires are broader, more conflicted, more sophisticated, and so on. Naturally, people are confronted by competition and their own limitations while seeing others succeed or fail. Ok, these are some of the psychological forces that occur in the internet world, and they will occur even if social media evolves.
The power of social media is a gateway to strife for all frequent users, not just children, though children may be least mature. Possibly exposure at a young age allows a child to absorb social media into life so long as the child has enough power against negative forces. If the child can retreat to an arms length position where an antagonist cannot physically reach the child, then the child can adapt.
Childhood vulnerability to online forces might be greatest with forces that are perceived to be positive. Overtly negative forces could prompt a child to switch the channel so to speak. Children would probably be the most easily fooled by temptations that lead deeper and deeper. Then, depression would be only one of the milder concerns.
The world is complex, and social media is a valid tool for exposing children to aspects of the world, with much needed control and guidance. There is a fine line between the vast regions of underexposure and overexposure.
Also, social media is a tool for self expression, and children need to learn how to construct as well as reach out. Even the denial of social media could lead to negative effects. Such is the complexity of society and powerful communications.
All dissatisfaction with communism and government interference aside, maybe it's time for government to build large scale cryptocurrency miners in order to reduce the energy inefficiency while earning more revenues. Government is always looking for revenues. People are always looking for a way to reduce taxes. Government is already facing the problem of building the power plants for the mining. Might as well go all the way and mine.
You'd have to be delusional to think this is an advantage.
And yet, I've seen many reports/documentaries/reviews over the years that have objectively compared SatNavs with London cabbies, and the cabbies always win, sometimes by a comically wide margin.
Having tried to navigate central London using a top-of-the-range SatNav, including all the whizzy new real-time this and traffic report that, this result does not surprise me in the slightest. The route-planning algorithms aren't even close to the same standard as a proper London cabbie, and their real-time feeds are neither accurate enough nor fast enough to know when to stick with the main route and when to divert along the back streets.
But in this tale of human intellect, why would a smart person who can do a job like this want to do it?
"A human navigator can't see ahead for optimizing against current traffic patterns as can GPS"
Really now? Anyone I have ever met knows things like, "If I don't leave in 15 minutes the 340 is going to be crowded, but I could take the 225. The 225 is longer but would end up being faster". And " since it is the holidays and there is a game that lets out soon, I'll take the 720, use high street, go through Clear Water subdivision, get on the 225 and miss the surge".
If a person is familiar with an ares, human usually wins.
Relax. A lawn chair and a bunch of drones or helium balloons, you're all set.
After Fukushima there was concern that radiation in the water could reach certain coasts at high concentration, so letting the dogs out would mean that some places can have too high a concentration.
There is one form of sequestration that might work quite well.
Surprisingly or maybe not, no one mentions it.
Quite simply, sequester the earth.
Ok, that was metaphorical. The idea has been suggested: an umbrella. There are other fears, particularly coronal mass ejections, that make a case for putting something between the sun and us to deflect the danger.
Of course, this pie in the sky is still practically, just a pie in the sky idea, and people should plan for it not to be built.
comes down to the numbers
howmuchwood can a woodchuckchuck
"Re-greening the desert is actually one of the most effective ways to sequester CO2"
Until the plants live their lifespan at which time they die and re-release the carbon to the atmosphere. It's like stuffing the credit card bill in the drawer, instead of paying it off.
Actual sequestration means removing the carbon from the biosphere nearly permanently----making new coal and stuffing it somewhere geologically isolated, uncombustible and undigestible.
What about centrifuging the air to separate out the co2 ?
Are there biological processes such as bacteria that really go nuts on dense co2 and then shit bricks of carbon?
Further, it is probably better to find new and increased uses for trees. Tree hugging is killing us because saving trees prevents the desire to grow trees. Just because I (as a generic person) might feel like saving a bunch of trees doesn't make me go out there and plant them. Ask any generic person what they're doing and you never hear "I'm off to plant a forest". But if I have a way to benefit from cutting a tree, I would feel like farming them. I'm sure a beaver would second that.
The problem is that there are too many trees where they should be cutting them (for example, the fires of California), and there is too much cutting versus growing in the rain forest. People think trees and forests are so big that it's all up to nature. Perhaps we have to look at ways of incentivizing people to leave the rain forests, give these people better opportunities. All easier said than done.
Surely all these people displaced by automation can return to manually plowing fields and manually harvesting? Or maybe they can run teams of horses for the carriage trade? perhaps they can connect phone calls at exchanges? Maybe they can stoke coal in the boilers of steam ships? Perhaps they can go house to house collecting the nightsoil buckets? maybe they can go around lighting the gas street lamps? Can't they act as runners for telegraph messages?
No need to worry about automation when all the jobs I just named are currently unfilled.
But they're filled. In fact you can do the job.
How useful is seeing the data if I can't stop them? At best it may be an eye opener. But that is far from the ideal situation.
Who stops whom?
Where's Windows 11? Microsoft isn't even going if I can't run Windows 11 by now.
In any event, this Finnish thing is an EXPERIMENT. It is not concluded,
Is it Finnished?
But to test whether the action was causal, should there be a parallel test where jobs are created, and then see how many are filled?
I'm not an American, but I'm wary too. Besides, I like driving. When the topic comes up, most people who welcome driverless cars seem to be those that hate driving or have to spend a lot of time in traffic jams.
My main concern is not safety. I worry that driving will become cost prohibitive if driverless cars have a certain amount of adoption. Insurance companies will say "use driverless, or you pay X times more". That would relegate driving to the rich. Also, it would make current cars worthless overnight. Poorer people wouldn't be able to afford personal transportation at all any more, since there won't be enough second hand driverless cars. All in all a rather bleak future in my eyes.
The slippery slope is what I see from what you are saying. Maybe the details of your scenario won't all occur, but there is a slippery slippery slipping to foresee.
The cause of the slippery slope is the thing to take note of. The hitherto playing field, not all that level anyways, will be jacked up hard and fast at one end when driverless cars are commonplace. Lots of stuff will come sliding down. In that future world driving a car used to be something requiring a higher organism, but no longer. When that domino falls, many others will.
To make elections better ...
Hmf.
Let the AI parse all the info and then appoint.
Next idea.
AI overlord
Who needs democracy?
Use AMD chips because they actually are immune to Meltdown and have already mitigated Spectre at the Microcode and OS level with a negligible impact on performance. Intel has yet to get their shit together and it's performance impact is growing with every new patch.
Cutting to the chase, use AMD as the fix for Intel.
I agree with you about earthquakes, but for fires few people really seem to plan well for them as even more expensive houses will get rebuilt in the same locations, controlled burns to keep vegetation in check will still not happen, and vegetation will grow back with a vengeance into eventual dry masses which will bring with it another catastrophic fire.
There is one difference that is easily not considered.
Robots.
Robotic technology is improving rapidly and will make it possible to do the grunt work of landscaping far and wide, as well as fighting fires or reducing the impact of natural disasters.
When arriveth the overlords?
Why would anyone expect the cost of natural disasters to do anything but go up? The price of everything is going up, from real estate to building materials to labor.
Firstly, I interpret this to be saying that it's all same old same old nothing needs to change.
That is not a correct argument. The price of a single item goes up - that's inflation. But if the price of a set of items is going up, you still have to think hmm, maybe that's because the number of items in the set is increasing or the items are getting bigger. If you see smoke, you have to think fire. Ok, I didn't count whether the set is increasing but I lived through the smokiest summer last year even though I wasn't terribly close to any wildfire. The year before that I had the warmest winter in memory. This winter is shaping up to be pretty springlike too in many ways for me. But I haven't relocated for a decade, so the physical evidence points to a situation that Robocop calls "trouble".
For sure, there seems to be a pretty wacky world. People don't apathetically vote a Trump, and I hear tell he didn't even feel like being president. He might have just been trying to raise issues to higher levels of interest (or raise himself to higher levels of interest). If the world was untroubled, who would have given Trump a second glance?