This is an absolute minefield of statistics to get into. 90% of all disasters are influenceable by climate change (not an earthquake or volcanic eruption for example). Of that 90%, almost all are currently exacerbated - either in scope, size, or frequency- by climate change.
The IPCC releases a fairly accessible 20 page summary [0], including high-quality citations, and levels-of-confidence. That document gives a good overview of the scale of this problem. It's not reasonable to say that there are 100% more disasters now than there were before anthropogenic climate change. It is reasonable to say that >50% of natural disasters are noticeably exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change.
Interestingly that was Microsoft’s vision for Windows where a Windows computer would serve as the home digital hub.
Ironically, it was open source operating systems that made it cost-effective to build the massive data centers that centralized the experience and killed that vision.
The problem with the Windows home computer vision was that it comprised of a bulky beige box with numerous power and data leads snaking out of it and a monstrous CRT based monitor (usually on top) and a huge clacky keyboard. Typically taking 6+ sq ft of table/bench space.
Today's tablets are far more convenient to locate where they are needed and portable as well.
i think there is a fundamental rather simple insight you should probably grasp, instead of shooting the messenger:
the humans, writ large, do not want this LLM revolution.
a handful of well connected folks overruling this and ramming AI everything down everyone's throats will not alter this sentiment to become acceptance instead.
polling is consistent with the articles simple conclusion, so your claim of manufactured outrage rings hollow.
""Proposed Intervenor does not explain how a court’s document retention order that directs the preservation, segregation, and retention of certain privately held data by a private company for the limited purposes of litigation is, or could be, a 'nationwide mass surveillance program,'" Wang wrote. "It is not. The judiciary is not a law enforcement agency.""
This is a horrible view of privacy.
This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement.
For example, if the New York Times sues that people using an a no scripts addin, are bypassing its paywall, can a judge require that the addin collect and retain all sites visited by all its users and then say its ok because the judiciary is not a law enforcement agency?
> This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement.
See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing.
People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either.
Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.
Sure, but scale matters. 99% of images being fake is a different situation than 1% being fake. We can't just ignore that in favor of a "this always happened" argument.
Everything has always happened, so who cares? We need to go deeper than that. Many things that are perfectly a-okay today are only so because we do it on a small enough scale. Many perfectly fine things, if we scale them up, destroy the world. Literally.
Even something as simple as pirating, which I support, would melt all world economies if everyone did it with everything.
Lewis Carroll also was fooled by it, when Churchill showed to him. Abraham Lincoln who was there at the moment it happened confirmed that to me, I can show you the original email he sent me about it (bar the elements I'll have to hide due to top secret information being included in the rest of the message).
Aren’t earthquakes completely unrelated to climate change?
And hurricanes have happened long before climate change.
And flooding.
No matter what, this is a good technology to have and develop.