Give it time. Under President Musk it'll only be a matter of time until they invent a drug like the one used by Dr Cortazar's group in The Vital Abyss, eschewing ethics for scientific progression. I wouldn't be surprised if half the scientists under Musk's companies jump at the chance to use it, considering they still work for him while he dismantles American democracy (so their ethics are already questionable).
>But in gauging the longer-term trend of what’s really happening with the fires, it’s necessary to go back much further. Data derived from written records from Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service dating back to 1919 show that wildfires, far from increasing, have actually declined over the last 100 years. And in fact the website of the National Interagency Fire Center previously noted that fires were at their very worst a century ago. (See data, research, and methodology for this article.)
>The data on the overall, century-long trend suggest that most of the 20th century represented an unusually low amount of fire, and what we’re seeing now is a return to the “normal” levels of fire of the early 1900s.
California leaving a wet period will make it burn less.
The problem isn't a lack of water. It's that we get a ton of water for a year or two. A bunch of stuff grows. Then we get no water for many years. All that stuff that grew in the wet years dries out. Eventually it burns.
If we just enter a dry period, there is only 1 step: no water, nothing grows. No more fires.
I can’t tell if this is a serious question. Towers this size are built in place, being able to handle the strain of being lifted from horizontal would be wild. Much easier and cheaper to pay a climber.
Ok. Lowering a huge tower to the ground pretty silly. How about designing the array at the top as a platform that could be lowered. Too much extra weight/cost?
Take a study that only shows a correlation, and then write a clickbait article about causation.
The actual study says:
>Importantly, our study design has several limitations that limit causal inference and result in the possibility of other explanations, including unmeasured confounding from biological, social, or administrative factors. Firstly and perhaps most importantly, selection bias is possible because individuals who are at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may be less likely to enter or remain in memory intensive driving occupations such as taxi and ambulance driving.
>...
And
>Our large scale epidemiological findings raise novel questions about the linkage between taxi and ambulance driving and Alzheimer’s disease mortality. While these findings suggest a potential link between the demands of these occupations and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk, this study design does not permit interpretation of a causal effect between occupations and risk of Alzheimer’s disease mortality or neurological changes in the hippocampus
I have noticed this for many years that when a study passes from the authors to science journalists to regular journalists to social media, information is lost at each level just like in Chinese whispers.
First, and it is the most important point, it links to the actual studies. So many articles don't do that... Maybe some journalists should be told that unlike paper, the web has hyperlinks, but here, the author knows.
More than that, the article doesn't mentions a single study, and is cautious regarding potential causation. The article title doesn't explicitly mention causation, just that "taxi drivers offer a clue". It is clickbait, but clicks is how they get paid, as mainstream journalists, they don't really have a choice.
As a mainstream news article I'd give it a 9/10. It has sources, makes an effort that goes beyond interpreting a single paper, and talks about shortcomings.
An RV is better than nothing but they are not built for continuous use. An RV that is being lived in full time will start falling apart in a few years.
that has zero realistic chance of happening in the US. Even repealing the Faircloth amendment that limits public housing stock is not broadly popular.
And these days all housing providers, whether for-profit, non-profit, or public, are running into the same issues with zoning, financing, rising costs, etc.
I can't believe anybody honestly thinks that building a powerful AI is honestly a good thing. It seems that we're all trapped in a "keeping up with the joneses" style race where even if every individual person agrees that building AI is a bad thing, they're not able to stop because they still want to beat the competition and reap the rewards. And once there are millions or billions of these AI agents running around each of whom is smarter than every human on earth, good luck trying to predict or control them..
Some people say they do, you know, summon the thermodynamic god and /wipe out all of humanity/ optimize the light cone according to the Jarzynski-Crooks fluctuation theorem.
