That's why the better policy is not to subsidize the purchase price of the car, but the various taxes associated with owning one, as well as offering certain perks like being able to drive in the bus lane. This was a huge success in Norway. Though now the percentage of new car purchases that are electric is so large that the subsidies are being rolled back because they've gotten too expensive(and the bus lane thing no longer makes sense because if the majority of cars can drive in it, it's not really a bus lane anymore). But I think that's fine. You can make an argument that when subsidies were introduced, electric cars were still struggling to compete with combustion cars in numerous ways, like range, capacity, access to chargers and repair services, etc. Subsidies/perks acted as compensation for those downsides for early adopters. The playing field is obviously a lot more even now. Chargers(including home chargers) are generally widely available, range is improved via better battery tech, there's a lot more players in the market, meaning more choice, etc. Not really a car guy, but I assume the repair situation is also improved, though it may not be on par yet.
It's not a classic thinkpad, but my thinkpad from 7 years ago is still going strong.
Recently I decided to do a service on it for the first time, and I was absolutely stunned by how little dust had built up in the CPU fan and the interior in general, after 7 years of usage, often sitting on top of a couch or bed, near my long-haired Norwegian forest cat Rufus. All it needed was a litle puff of computer duster and it was good as new. That's very good design of the air intakes and is a huge factor in the machine's longevity.
I did computer repair professionally for a while, and one of the most common causes of irreparable death I saw in laptops was massive dust buildup in cpu fans and consequent heat damage to surrounding components. I'd sometimes see this in 2-3 year old laptops even.
Funny to think that something as simple as the shape of an air intake opening can have such a profound impact on the lifetime of a device.
The other thing that Thinkpads are unrivaled at is protection for the display. People like to say macbooks are sturdy, but they are quite prone to cracked displays because of Apple's obsession with smaller bezels. The thinkpad ofc has t34 style angled armor for its display. Can't remember ever seeing a Thinkpad with a cracked display. And I carry my Thinkpad around in just a backpack with no sleeve, often the Thinkpad is the only thing in there, and it regularly impacts the floor when the(thin-bottomed) backpack is put down while sitting down on the bus or getting home.
Hans Niemann almost certainly did not cheat against Carlsen. Carlsen just played that game rather poorly and ragequit the tournament because he's a baby who can't handle losing.
I do think Niemann may have cheated in OTB chess before. But not at the Sinquefield Cup, I just don't see it. And the only evidence is insinuations from a sore loser who's well known for throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
The buttplug stuff was really just a joke from reddit, no one's seriously suggested anyone is actually cheating using a buttplug. Doesn't even make sense as a way of cheating, really. It would be extremely obvious.
He made a great move in the game, but completely mis-analyzed the reason it works during the post-game interview [1]. Several GMs found that suspicious, especially given revelations that he'd previously admitted to cheating.
Specifically, move 19. Qd3! [2], appears to hang the knight. When asked how he'd respond if his opponent simply took the knight (19... dxc4), he says he is "completely winning", then proceeds to give some moves that lead to a flat-out losing position. (Eg: Any GM or sufficiently strong engine agrees that r2q1rk1/1pbn1p2/2p1b1pB/p3P3/P1p2P2/2P3QP/1P4P1/3RRBK1 b - - 0 1 is lost for White.)
To be fair, he's been playing incredibly well recently, and no other evidence of cheating came out, so I'm inclined to believe it was just a "bad interview."
Hans Niemann almost certainly did cheat against Carlsen. Everyone who knows about chess found that game hugely suspicious (see Hikaru's comments on it).
The idea that Carlsen can't stand losing is a theory from people who don't know about chess. His lose rate is about 15%. All GMs lose games all the time. It's keeping the win rate as high as possible that makes them the best.
The notion that any GM would get so upset simply about losing a single game is just nonsense.
I've been playing tournament chess for 20 years. Not every game is created equal. Some losses are more upsetting than others. Carlsen has some narcissistic traits, which is unsurprising given that he's been showered in adulation from the chess world and general public since he was a small child(and this is common in these chess virtuosos. See Kasparov, Fischer, Kramnik, Nakamura). He might be able to handle losing to someone he considers his peer, but there are plenty of things about Niemann's personality rumours circulating about his online cheating during the game, and his rating at the time that made this loss particularly hard to handle.
And GMs have had plenty of bad reactions to losses throughout the history of chess. It definitely happens. Chess is an emotionally taxing game. You spend many hours of exhausting effort at the board only to lose due to a momentary brainfart. It's infuriating. GMs are humans too. Hell, fairly recently there was an incident when GM Christopher Yoo punched a photographer after losing a game at a tournament in St Louis.
Would it, though? What matters is glycemic index, and that depends on the overall composition of the food, not just on levels of simple carbohydrates. Focusing purely on one nutrient or on total caloric content is hopelessly reductionist.
For instance white bread has a high glycemic index not because of added sugar, but because all of the fibre and most of the protein have been removed. Proper whole grain, brown bread has a low glycemic index and tons of protein. And that's true even if there's some syrup added for flavour, which is not uncommon.
I believe sugar is added to sliced bread primarily as a preservative and to retain moisture. When fresh I've never noticed much of a difference between "no sugar added" and comparable sliced bread with corn syrup or honey, but the former goes stale more quickly.
The economic pressures are at odds because as people eat less bread shelf stability, both at the grocery store and at home, becomes increasingly important to maintaining a desirable yet competitively priced product. People don't want added sugar and are more carb conscious generally, but what they dislike even more, without realizing it, is stale bread. So you get a positive feedback loop that turns people off of bread, I think.
Couldn't agree more. I see this a lot here in Norway too. So much talk of "ultra-processed" food and its dangers, and recommendations to avoid it but the category is so wide as to include even things like baked beans, because they may have some salt, sugar and modified starch added; or peanut butter because it may have some sugar added to help it stay emulsified and some saturated fat added to make it less runny.
Does that processing suddenly turn the beans from one of the healthiest foods we know of to an unhealthy one? Probably not. Does it make them easier to use in cooking vs dried beans, leading more people to eat beans? Probably yes.
Same thing for the peanut butter. As part of my breakfast, I often have a slice or two of brown, whole grain bread with peanutbutter(the non-disgusting kind with additives mentioned above, about 89% peanuts) and banana. That's a meal rich in protein, various kinds of fiber, polyunsaturated fats, slow carbs, various vitamins and minerals. The fact that the PB has a little sugar and sat fat in it doesn't really matter very much. I've tried PB That's 99% peanuts and frankly it's disgusting. It separates, it's runny and it has an off taste too. If that was the only PB on the market I wouldn't even use it.
The problem is 1. That government recommendations and public discourse place far, far too much emphasis on population studies based on overly vague categories like this and 2. That there's an almost singular focus on things people should avoid rather than things people need more of, especially fibre and protein. Fibre is crucially important, and maybe this is a hot take, but I think lack of fibre is maybe the most important factor when it comes to public health and food.
Fibre increases satiety and bulk, leading you to eat less calories, lowers glycemic index avoiding insulin resistance and diabetes, improves intestinal function(via interaction with gut biome) and therefore micronutrient uptake, and it(specifically beta-glucans found in oats and other grains) even lowers LDL cholesterol. Not to mention it prevents hemorrhoids, which might not affect longevity, but it's certainly nice. And indeed, no surprise, a lot of "ultra-processed" food happens to be devoid of fibre.
I think "fibre-depleted" and "protein-depleted" would be more useful categories to use than the much more vague "ultra-processed".
Modified starch seems like a prime candidate for an ultra-processed ingredient. I don't know which one is used in baked beans, but there's a whole list of enzymes, acids and alkalis used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch
I didn't realize we could buy 89% peanut butter in Europe. At my nearest supermarket in Copenhagen I have the choice of 99.5% (Machandel), 99.6% (Urtekram) or 99.3% (Salling). The other 11% of yours is probably palm oil, sugar and salt, so less questionable than the modified starch but it's still additives to increase shelf life and make the boring, natural peanut more appealing.
It's by far the most sold one. I just checked, and it's not palm oil(which I would be opposed to for environmental reasons), but sunflower oil(probably high-stearic, though it doesn't say), diglycerides and monoglycerides, salt and glucose. probably most of the additive is the sunflower oil.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter, that's my point. the 89% peanuts gives me lots of protein, fibre and healthy fats, which is making it easier for me to diet and lose weight, thereby improving my health. That almost certainly outweighs any potential risks from the 11%. The 11% honestly helps in that it makes the whole thing palatable. I can't overstate how much I hate pure peanut butter; just thinking about it makes me gag.
I mean, adding stuff to food to make it more appealing or longer-lasting is what humans do. It's what we've always done. Just concluding that it's bad and shouldn't be done is silly. I'm much more interested in specifics.
You can even make a health-positive argument for preservatives. Preservatives prolong shelf life -> means I can keep more diverse food around with less time expenditure(not going to the store every day) and with less waste because there's only so much food I can eat in a given time -> means I can follow a more varied diet in practice -> better health outcomes.
Now, if there's a specific problem with one preservative or other additive, fine. replace it with something else.
Not to mention that "speculation", better known as theory, is a fundamental and crucial part of science. Some of the most celebrated scientists in history are celebrated for their theoretical work. Newton, Einstein, Charles Darwin(sure, Darwin did a lot of observation as did most biologists of that era, but his theory of natural selection, though inspired by his observational work, is clearly a theoretical idea, not an empirical result).
And of course, skimming over the actual paper in question, it's not even theory/speculation really. It's more like a review of the existing literature and empirical data on soda lakes, the different types of them, and their plausibility for abiogenesis based on their ability to maintain P concentrations despite significant biological activity.
This is actually someone testing a previously theorised idea against the best available data and affirming it as plausible.
Speculation is part of the process by which we formulate a *hypothesis*. We then run experiments to test and validate this hypothesis. If it is found to be correct then it gets promoted to a *theory*.
I was gonna reply to this earlier but forgot. I think there is a difference between a theory of ongoing dynamics and laws compared to a theory about what happened once upon a time. The former is easier and more valuable. But the latter has some value too.
I've heard that Singapore manages to do it. Copy whatever they do. It doesn't need to be 100% effective, because it's easy to rip the caps off the new bottles making them not 100% effective either.
This is not true. You will not get caned for littering in Singapore. You might get a fine, or be sentenced to clean a public area while wearing a bright uniform (so that everyone can see that you're being punished). See: https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/nea-increases-v...
I mean, bath salts are certainly illegal in most countries now, but when they were new, they really weren't. Since most laws back then were(and still are, in many places) largely just giant lists of chemicals, plants and fungi.
The not for human consumption stuff was just a facile attempt to avoid liability for any consequences.
