About time. On that note: required viewing: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/plastic-wars/ enlightening…

Futurists look to reach the singularity and Evangelists look to invoke the rapture. Not everything any group looks to do is actually practical.

Now I’m even less likely to watch the video. Panned over to 12:38. That is a pretty egregious error. Either they are incompetent and their opinions aren’t too valuable, or intentionally trying to mislead the now over 1.4million people who have watched that video. This seems like they tried to cherry pick a stat that bodes in favour of their argument and biffed it. Lots of people are still immigrating to Canada, so definitely far more than “no one” wants to live in Canada. https://www.statista.com/topics/2917/immigration-in-canada/

I see no citations in the video description and I’m not too interested in listening to their argument if they can’t provide those citations up front. The only measure they seem to be appealing to in order to support their claim that “no one wants to live in Canada” is that Canada has lowered in happiness index. But, by that measure Canada is 15th in the world and USA is 23rd. So, if that’s the main reason to think people don’t want to live in Canada, then people really don’t want to live in the USA. On its face, that strikes me as exceptionally untrue.

6x7?

Fuck. I thought I might have more time to see him one day. Waited too long

It’s impossible to know exactly what we don’t know. This is a big issue, but there are people taking it seriously. It seems likely new antibiotics which will work are going to be developed. For example: this new class that was discovered a couple months ago using AI.

How’s this for a plan:

1. build high speed rail
2. build more housing (especially single dwelling) that is not corporate owned
3. tax more heavily income from real estate conglomerates to fund 1 and 2

I think The Lancet is a reputable journal. They seem to have conveyed the findings of this article well. With quotes from the authors as well. Seems like an adequately scientific article with very little exaggeration. So, by my standards I wouldn’t consider it click bait.

Welp. I guess we better buckle up as it’s about to get much much worse considering the new text-to-video AI capabilities coming https://openai.com/sora Very worriesome

https://archive.is/PnB5R

Dang, I was just planning on a trip to Alaska to get scratched by stray cats. I guess I’ll have to cancel now that this newfangled Alaskapox has popped up.

Good idea in principle. Do peer-reviewed journals only count as credible? If not, what is your proposed criteria?

Here’s a transcript to peruse if anyone is interested. Then you can search for keywords to see if they were mentioned, quickly flick through Putin’s rambling and you avoid providing Tucker with a click. Here’s also an archive link if anyone prefers that.

I could comment on how I feel about this new AI, but I prefer not to

Section 6. Except as provided for in Section 4, nothing in this act shall be construed as limiting or preventing psychologists, psychological technicians, and master’s level licensed mental health professionals from rendering the services for which they are qualified by training or experience involving the application of recognized principles, methods, and procedures of the science and profession of psychology and counseling. Section 7. Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a new or separate standard of care for hospitals or physicians and their patients or otherwise modify, amend, or supersede any provision of the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1987 or the Alabama Medical Liability Act of 1996, or any amendment or judicial interpretation of either act.

If affirming care means socially affirming as well as medical (drugs / surgery) then the law isn’t entirely against affirming care because it doesn’t mention anything against social affirmation and explicitly allows for psychologists to make appropriate decisions in that realm.

I’m not saying I’m for this law, but it is important to be precise about what the law is. It’s actually not a very long read.

Try this lecture by Andrew Steele on for size if you’re actually interested: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fX9P1xuIJGg

Pathetic. Given the seriousness of what he said, and continues to say even this month, no one with a working brain could possibly believe anything in this sad non-attempt at an apology message. It doesn’t resolve anything, it doesn’t make clear that he understands what was wrong with what he said, it doesn’t specify what he is going to do differently going forward, and it isn’t even clear that it is truly a message from him or genuine.

It doesn’t prevent the rape, but they do have “cul-de-sac pouches en route, that could prevent fertilisation by capturing unwelcome sperm.” So they can choose whether or not they get fertilized. Which is at least some sort of a defense. Edit: link for quote

My first question was, what is the alternative? Here’s the answer:

…now working to consolidate a sustainable, international alternative, in particular by using OpenAlex.