This whole argument hinges on believing the opinion of the writer, who tries to assure you that he is very informed and you don't need any data to get in the way of the message.
While he may or may not be accurate in his assessment at this time, he manages to gloss over any number of historical factors that have brought us to this junction.
Continuing to invest in nuclear is a good idea. There is money to do so and yes, the military provides much of that. And they control an immense amount of fissile material. Wouldn't it be great if there was a future where that material, which has been mined at great cost, refined at immense cost and handled at astounding cost could be used to benefit the populace that have afforded it?
The huge arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world only has one way to make its exit. I'd rather we continued to work on an alternative.
Haha, this is funny because everyone is talking about this as if it is designed to be like the LLMs we have access to.
The training parameters will be the databases of info scooped up and integrated into profiles of every person and their entire digital footprint, queriable and responsive to direct questioning
Toyota has very recently publicized their commitment to hybrid technology as it is the only foreseeable outcome for mass adoption and transition off of gasoline.
Toyota is over invested in technology which has been overtaken by newer, better variants. They bet early, didn't see the promised gains, and their leadership have reduced faith in the likelihood that battery tech will be able to turn a profit.
I suspect they will be caught with their pants down and will need to resort to using someone else's supply chain to fulfill demand in the future. This will push the cost of their own supply chain up, and they will become increasingly less competitive and lose market share because of it.
They are conservative - looking at the ICE engines - while VAG has long transitioned to using turbo charged direct fuel injection (remember the infamous troubling and discontinued 1.4 TSi (supercharging/turbo)) they are focused on durability and efficiency of tried designs.
It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.
Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.
Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.
>Human-subject testing is needed to test this hypothesis
This is a hypothesis and one that seems poorly born considering quercetin is available over the counter as a supplement and in no way causes headaches.
It is however, amazing at bolstering the immune system
While the latter part of your statement is reasonable, it is also only opinion. Many people would prefer a less technically advanced society. This forum, for instance, is about as simple as it gets and that is to it's credit.
The initial point misses a fairly significant consideration though. A huge number of advancements are publicly funded. That public funding turns into private profit. People largely unaware of that fact, recently were made aware with the massive vaccine development spending that led to record shattering profits for pharma companies. To cite just one prominent example in the last few years.
> Humans are wildly dangerous, vengeful, intelligent and resourceful.
We spend the beginning and end of our lives pathetic, weak and vulnerable. There is a limited window of time in which we are dangerous, vengeful, intelligent, and resourceful enough to be threatening.
We have no armor, no fur, no claws. We freeze to death in the cold and burn in the sun. We can't breathe underwater, nor can we fly. Being bipedal we can't hunt anything by chasing it and beating it to death; we leverage deception, surprise and traps and are quickly fucked when anything uses the same tactics on us.
We're good at leveraging technology. That's the only reason we're apex. If we can't exploit some other creature in time to adapt to the current situation, we're dead.
Intelligence is not the only physical attribute we excel in. Humans are frequently cited as the best endurance runners among the animal kingdom[0]. Some extant (and probably many prehistoric) tribes hunt via exhaustion, running down even large mammals until they collapse.[1] Humans also have excellent manual dexterity for tasks like grabbing, pulling and digging. Humans also seem to have better vision than most animals excluding birds of prey, with good performance across a number of attributes like color perception, depth perception, motion perception, etc.
> But the idea is a supposition. It was formulated as a way to explain characteristics humans possess. The best evidence for humans engaging in persistence hunting is merely that we have physical traits that suggest we could do so.
While he may or may not be accurate in his assessment at this time, he manages to gloss over any number of historical factors that have brought us to this junction.
Continuing to invest in nuclear is a good idea. There is money to do so and yes, the military provides much of that. And they control an immense amount of fissile material. Wouldn't it be great if there was a future where that material, which has been mined at great cost, refined at immense cost and handled at astounding cost could be used to benefit the populace that have afforded it?
The huge arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world only has one way to make its exit. I'd rather we continued to work on an alternative.