It sounds crazy because it's not what it's being asked of openAI, the regulator complain that openAI hasn't put anything in place to check if the user is a minor, which is a reasonable complaint. They are not asking openAI to collect more data for the sake of it, but to refuse access to minors

Every tool that automates a task reduces the skill that students learn. Calculators reduced the average ability of a student to do algebraic calculations without support, this "sacrifice" has been considered worth it because the time saved from not practicing calculations has been used to understand more math concepts. But is the ability to write essays, to answer complex/abstract questions, to understand and summarize informations and to draw conclusions from those informations something we are willing to sacrifice? And if so, what abilities are we giving instead to our students?

There is also the option to not use ai tools at school/university, just like programmable calculators have not substituted scientific calculators

The arithmetic mean is the sum of the numbers divided by the number of numbers The geometric mean is the n root of the product of the numbers. For example, if the numbers you want to find the mean of are: 1 10 11 99 The arithmetic mean is 30.25, while the geometric mean is 10.21. The geometric mean is more accurate when the value are a bit skewed (in the example 99 is an outlier, and it brings the arithmetic mean all the way up to 30, which is not very representative of the 4 numbers, the geometric one is more accurate), while the arithmetic mean is the better one when the data is more uniform and independent of each other (the geometric mean is almost always lower)

Only three factors are included: Their GDP per Capita is good, life expectancy is ok and education seems to be decent. Unfortunately the HDI doesn't consider many important parameters

The HDI is a geometric mean, outliers have a smaller impact compared to arithmetic means. Their GDP per Capita is good, life expectancy is ok and education seems to be decent. Unfortunately the HDI doesn't consider many important parameters

If someone with one hand can at most lift 20 lb, with two hands they can probably lift at least 50 lb, which is more than the sum of the combined hands alone.

But they won't develop a space sector of their own, they will just throw money at someone else to solve the problem

That's an extremely short time when those countries' prosperity/existence entirely depends on it

It's probably not the kind of market where private companies thrives, the capital needed and the initial risks will probably be high enough that a few failures would bankrupt most companies. On top of that fusion generation is stable, reliable and predictable, unlike fossil fuel power plants there is not much speculation, so the profit margins will be pretty slim (especially since electric grid are often somewhat nationalized, or at least the government has a strong influence). Lastly ITER is a collaboration between countries, the agreement is that when ITER will archive its goal the results will be shared between the participants, no company will be able to archive a monopoly.

From Wikipedia

A pollutant or novel entity[1] is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Co2 has the unwanted and negative effect of absorbing infrared emissions of the earth surface, so it is a pollutant. I'm really curious as to why co2 is not a pollutant according to you, because plants use it?

Co2 is an infrared absorber, that's the problem.

And yes, people measured, the fact that co2 absorbs infrared makes it easy to measure its quantity. People measured how much the USA releases, then they divided it by the population to get an average.

16 tons of co2 each year, on average.

Pollute less?

I'm European. I already went first.

The only options are a 20% reduction or returning to the bronze age?

Following the same path of the EU would be more than enough, and probably more than anyone expects or asks from the USA, the EU produces roughly half the tons of Co2 both per Capita and per dollar of value produced compared to the US. And the US is probably richer than the average European country, so the lack of money is probably not the problem.

And drastically means Nothing.

Praising the US policis for such a small reduction is ridiculous and pointless.

"ALMOST at an all time high" seems more fitting than "drastically reduced" when referring to a 20% reduction.

Your initial argument is that the USA "drastically" reduced emissions without harming the poorest part of the population, and my point is that it is simply not true. The USA produces the same emissions that it did 50 years ago, does it seem enough to you? The USA hasn't suffered from climate change policies because it has not put in place any meaningful climate policy.

Mostly because they have started to increase again. My point still stands, emissions aren't being reduced, not nearly enough to have any meaningful impact on our effect of climate change.

What about your point? How can you describe people's opinions as "unscientific catastrophizing" when your opinion is based on wrong facts

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

We are 20% down from the all time high. Basically the same level of the eighties. Is this what you would describe as "drastically reduced"?

Drastically? The CO2 emissions per Capita have been reduced by less than a quarter in the last 30 years. And the total emissions are almost at an all time high.

A few developed countries have reduced significantly their emissions, mostly the Eu, but the USA is not one of them, the only reductions are caused by an increased efficiency in the technology used, definitely not because of efficient climate policies or a shift in the public opinion on the matter.

The USA is the richest country on earth by far, and it's doing nothing, and the problem is not that people wouldn't be able to heat their homes or fuel their cars, there is plenty of wealth to spare, but people just don't care enough, even though doing something is in their best interest, but it doesn't benefit them in the short term

Luckily we are able to do multiple things at the same time, trying to save the planet and fusion research.

> I don't recall saying we spent too much money on it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but doesn't this

> I suggested that maybe we are too arrogant to believe it can be done at all, ergo we should turn our planet saving efforts toward other means.

Mean "we shouldn't be spending our resources on fusion research, and focus those resources on other means to save the planet"? To me it sounds like a suggestion that we spend/spent too much money on fusion, and that we should spend them elsewhere.

We are spending so little on "trying to create stars" that, if we don't succeed, aliens won't even be able to tell that we tried. We spend more on most of the most famous sports, we spent more on the football world cup of this year than the entire world spent in fusion research for the last 70 years, we spend a lot of money on absolutely useless things, and you complain about spending an insignificant amount on something that could be a civilization game changer.

The iskander is an effective hypersonic missle, i focused on the hypersonic part because it's the technically harder one. They are precise enough to hit a specific part of a building, powerful enough to destroy it completely (I'm sure some military bunkers could withstand its impact, but surely not many of them), and since they are hypersonic they are extremely hard to intercept. As expected it's the precision guided missile that Russia used the most, and that it has the least left in stock (probably, infos about Russia armament are hard to confirm). As i said the missle is technically impressive, but not being able to produce them in sufficient quantity reduces its impact on the battlefield, but that is an industrial problem, the discussion was started on the technical capabilities of Russia.

Where are you taking your definition of hypersonic from? In aerospace subjects I've always used the threshold of mach 5, and a quick Google search confirms it, but maybe there are other standards that I'm not familiar with.

Russia launched 776 iskander missiles, according to Ukraine (idk if they would benefit from lying on this number, but it's probably in the same order of magnitude as the true number), but i can't find any reputable source stating that Ukraine can reliable intercept any significant number of those missiles (you are stating a 50/70% success rate, stopping some 400 missiles has to leave some indisputable proofs).

I'm not trying to give any opinion on Russia's use of missiles, i just think that underestimating the level of the Russian military technology is not something that will help us, in a war industrial might is a lot more important than the specification of a rocket (if you can't produce them, they won't have an impact anyway), and Russia proved to be extremely underwhelming in that aspect, but a nuclear warhead needs just one missile to do unimaginable damage...

The iskander missle reaches hypersonic speeds, making it extremely difficult to intercept, and Russia already used a lot of them in Ukraine, they seem to have problems not known before the war but speed doesn't look like it's one of them. Just trying to state facts, correct me if I'm wrong.