Flozzin

The article digs a little deeper after. Saying the chat records are lost, and that when they asked ChatGPT, it didn't give that guidance about cleaning purposely only, and that it never asked why they wanted to know.

Really though, this could have just as easily happened in a google search. It's not ChatGPT's fault as much as this persons fault for using a non-medical professional for medical guidance.

Maybe you would know or have an opinion. I see a lot of articles about rewiring your brain. For instance, the affects from meditation, or book reading. And how those things can rewire your brain. But does it matter? If it's relatively simple rewire your brain(simple as in, doing an activity for several months). It appears to me, that your brain adapts, and that adaptation is normal. Struggling to completely put this idea into words, but isn't this more like saying, 'if you lift this weight your muscles grow!', and then selling that as if its some sort of miracle?

more

Our culture tends to embrace technological progress. But we don't have to. It's just something we do accept. And yes, many technologies have eliminated jobs. Some have created new ones sure, but it's not always 1 to 1. Not everyone replaced on an assembly line by a robot or machine, is needed to repair or build that new machine.

Our tendency to 'progress' doesn't have to be the case, we all could collectively decide to hold ourselves here.

Also, I don't think that all our technology has always been good for us either. But we are blind to the downsides mostly.

It's also about what you are avoiding. Its clearly a trade off, as you lay out. But then you are opening up another set of problems you will have to tackle. For the interviewer in the article, they prefer cameras.

It's not much different than choosing to interview people who will come into the office. Of course you are limiting yourself to people in the area. But employers know this.

Also, this idea that there is a single best candidate is rubbish. There are multiple candidates that are just as good as the next. And every person has their ups and downs, as well as trade offs. I also find it hard to believe that most employers are going to be able to tell the difference on such a fine scale as to not be able to choose certain limiting factors.

While there is a lot of good thoughts about what the democrat party did wrong to lose the last election. I feel your comment places all the blame on them. They did not force republicans to go down this road. This is not the inevitable outcome of a broken democrat party. The republicans went down this road, and so did their voters. They chose this, many times. There were many opportunities for the republican party to rid itself of this ideology but they chose power.

So yes, the democrat party has had many failings over the past decade if not more, but that doesn't make this a binary choice between Trumpian policies and democrat failings.

I am sure there is a cost savings if insurers were just required to pay. I have to imagine, they put a lot of effort auditing if medical service was in-network/covered by the plan. And more effort in fighting the people over claims. This isn't to say there is not genuine fraud or abuse going on by hospitals/doctors, but you often hear of people just trying to get their treatments covered.

I would say no. We still have data on our year to year/decade to decade C02 in the atmosphere. So we can track how quickly it's rising. Those data points would already include any error we have in how much C02 is absorbed or created.

I want to say it was the NYTimes, "the daily" podcast that did a pretty good job of being even handed when talking about this. If anyone is interested, it should be the Dec 4th one. They brought up the fact that we've tried to do things like this in the past, and that they have all mostly failed, for political reasons.

Cutting government spending is very hard to do. Everyone has special interests they look to protect, and no congress person wants to be the one that stopped funding for their district/state. I too am hopeful, but I have my doubts.

I'm really shocked that 'soon' can be considered 30 years. So you agree to store someones stuff for a short time, and then you are locked in for 30+ years? I thought america had crazy lawsuits...

We regulate the sale of all sorts of things that can do damage but also have other uses. You can't buy large amounts of certain cold medicines, and you need to be an adult to do so. You can't buy fireworks if you are a minor in most places. In some countries they won't even sell you a set of steak knives if you are underage.

Someone else's response was that a 10 year old should not be on ticktoc. Well then how did they get past the age restrictions?(I'm guessing its a check box at best). So its inadequately gated. But really, I don't think its the sort of thing that needs an age gate.

They are responsible for a product that is actively targeting harmful behavior at children and adults. It's not ok in either situation. You cannot allow your platform to be hijacked for content like this. Full stop.

These 'services' need better ways to moderate content. If that is more controls that allow them to delete certain posts and videos or some other method to contain videos like this. You cannot just allow users to upload and share whatever they want. And further, have your own systems promote these videos.

Everyone who makes a product(especially for mass consumption), has a responsibility to make sure their product is safe. If your product is so complicated that you can't control it, then you need to step back and re-evaluate how it's functioning. Not just plow ahead, making money, letting it harm people.

Maybe it should be open source. It is using our tax dollars after all. But I think this failure isn't a failure of the software. But a failure of using software. And of have complex laws/criteria of who can be helped. We should craft laws and programs that are uncomplex. 400 million dollars on admin software to ultimately deny people care they want. That just shouldn't be a thing. We should have spent that money on helping people, and using it to 'eat' the cost of accepting too many people.

Our justice system acknowledges that it's flawed and it's flawed with the idea of letting guilty people go, in order to make sure we aren't charging innocent people.(granted we are failing at that). But we should be crafting care with the intention of accidentally helping people who may have no qualified so that all qualified people would get care.

It's very wordy. I get the feeling ChatGPT wrote it. AI has the tendency to maximize word usage, like it's a highschooler trying to hit the 'word count minimum' in their paper.

Even if they did, they would be the largest target for hackers or corporate espionage. I would find it hard to believe, that they would get any sort of good return on this before it was all over the internet, or at least in the hands of several competitors.

I felt the study was flawed the instant I saw they tied the golden hour to a time. So if I drive a mile to cross the river into the next time zone, I can stay up an extra hour? This study should have been tied to a concept of sleep rhythm or how long you stay up after you wake each morning. But tying it to such a poor concept of our time(which is tied to time zones which abruptly start/end at specific locations) doesn't give me much faith in the study.

I'm not too worried. They were looking at bottled water. My home system isn't the same one they were testing. It's similar, it might have similar problems. But I also don't know how often those filters are changed. My filters last 6 months, I would imagine it sheds most of the plastic right away, and you are suppose to drain the first couple gallons. The other components are rarely switched out, only when they break. Overall, I would think a home system sheds less. Also strung out through that entire article is the fact that all water has plastics. So at this point we are sorta screwed. Pick your poison, chemicals and plastic in your water, or mostly plastic...

Or you are my wife, didn't realize it wasn't flat, and now your plastic bottle is bouncing down the mountain side and part of the trash littering the place.

No, not really. People do all sorts of crap for all sorts of reasons. Some people are literally insane. Some people do things at your expense. Some people just like to amuse only themselves. And then throw drugs and alcohol in the mix, there isn't much reason to believe that people are always rational actors which have to be taken seriously.

Many, including myself, don't believe that solving the climate crisis will be done, by invention of a single new technique. So I agree, scaling up this project to be the only solution would not be possible. C02, methane, and other greenhouse gasses are produced from multiple large sources. And tackling that problem will just not happen by only using 1 solution. Any project that large would almost require some other environmental impact. We are having trouble scaling up batteries without such a consequence.(as an example)

Many insects that are native to the area have co-evolved with the native plants. Which means that, non-native plants are not always the best fit for those insects. So planting native plants, usually means a plant better suited to live in that environment, but also, a plant that better benefits the native animal/insect life.

I can't follow or tweet using their official website(twitter.com).

ElonJet should just recreate and rebrand as EJetDogPics. In addition to tweeting when his jet moves around, they also send out cute dog pics. That way, their account isn't just 'dedicated' to sharing someones live location.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I always had the impression that Malcolm was the bad boy of his era. His reputation is much worse than King(who is seen as a hero). After reading it, it's all undeserved. He's not a pacifist sure, but the forces acting on him weren't pacifists either. It changed my world view, and did a lot to lift some blinders I had on. Of course he is from a different era, but many of the things he was struggling against are still in the USA today(sadly). So still relevant.

So what we need is an AI that completely understands the problem space and can tell us what to code.

It's hard for me to find good nature documentaries, when they aren't hosted by Attenborough. But my daughter and I just started watching "Tiny World" on apple tv. It's hosted by Paul Rudd, and it's absolutely amazing. The shots of animals they get are crazy, half the time I wonder if its been green screened. Highly recommend it.

I disagree. There are practical limits to what we are responsible for. And there are current obligations and responsibilities we have for ourselves. Just because we know of something does not make us responsible for it. Proximity and risk also play a role.

I am obligated to my family and to myself. To provide for them as an example. But I would also be able to fly across the world and feed a starving child, in theory. But my obligation to my own family, and myself outweighs that. There would also be risks to the journey. Consequences with those actions as well.

I for one, will be alive for another 50 years if you go by how old my grandfather and father are(both still quite alive).

As long as the farmers are made whole if their farms are indeed shut down. Right now that is a 'fear' not an actuality of any policy. Times change, things change. I am pretty confident in saying that these ancestral farms are not run the same today as they were 100 years ago. So their impact is much different.

Also, I feel the same about people that do not want to leave the environment cleaner on all levels. "Who cares about climate change, I'll be dead when the worst of it comes to pass."

This is mostly a fair criticism. I've seen the common, 'my body my rights' used in both vaccines and abortion rights. I would point out however, that the vaccine is less deadly, with fewer side effects than carrying a baby to birth. But also, vaccines give herd immunity, which is a direct benefit to the people around you. So they wouldn't be the same. Vaccines and climate change are not comparable in any way. And just to state, you can be pro-government and anti-government in certain areas of life/society simultaneously without being a hypocrite. Government is and can be expansive and everyone has their limits. Unless you also like pointing out that people live in houses but still go outside?(What is that all about? like come on, you either love living indoors or outdoors you can't do both /s)

Something not discussed is the why. Why would we want more or less people. The less people, the less pollution. The more people, the more ???.

One way we have been able to have this many people, are modern farm practices. But those rely heavily on chemicals. Which is not ideal(dead ecosystems, poisoned water). Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

They are turning c02 from a gas into liquid form. So I assume they can store it indefinitely.