Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

The data would suggest that isn't the case.

> Record numbers not working due to ill health https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65596283

From the summary of the data[1] being relied upon in that report:

> The number of people economically inactive because of long-term sickness has risen to over 2.5 million people, an increase of over 400,000 since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

> Over 1.35 million (53%) of those inactive because of long-term sickness reported that they had depression, bad nerves or anxiety in Quarter 1 2023, with the majority (over 1 million) reporting it as a secondary health condition rather than their main one.

Bad nerves and anxiety could be a reason for a tiny number of people, but those numbers are huge, and if you think I'm lacking compassion for this, hearing what whistleblowers say regarding the way assessments are done[2] may be relevant:

> Sickness benefit assessments via telephone (rather than in-person visit) are now routine and it's not always necessary to provide proof of a sick note. In the film, Michael Houston, a former assessor, is asked how well it's possible to discern, over the phone, if someone should qualify for full sickness benefit. "Not very," he replied, "which is one of the things that ethically and morally I didn't really feel comfortable with."

That's not even the half of it, and that website has stories of people trapped in the system.

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotin...

[2] https://www.benefitstrap.com/sarah

> You can't compile a list of facts about a person's life and use that to deterministicly attribute the cause of given conditions.

That is just not the case, and I shouldn't have to point out such basics on HN.

> A physical exam at the start of insurance doesn't solve this, because like I said, the existing issues could have been caused by any number of problems.

And yet I have to… People do a thing called "collecting data", on a large scale, and then they apply the lessons learnt from that data to calculate statistical risk. An imperfect system but, strangely enough, very effective (when not interfered with, as in the US health system).

Of course, you are welcome to open a car insurance company and offer everyone the same insurance for the same price and watch as young men and previously uninsurable people flock to your service. Maybe you'll get lucky and won't have to pay out more than you take in. All the best with that.

> Your example also has the problem of measuring the "lifestyle questions" being presented. How would you prove a person isn't exercising enough? If I know it will get me denied I'm not going to self report.

And then the insurance company can decide what level of fraud it will tolerate (something HN has discussed previously[0], and the linked article[1] is enlightening) and thus adjust its costs, and perhaps premiums.

> Your dismissal of my specific example is silly - I don't want to sue a doctor for misdiagnosing a relatively common issue.

If it's not a problem then don't sue. If it is, that is what the court system is for (or whatever system doctors and medical companies would put in place to avoid going to court).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38905889

[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

I think you may be thinking of the question, "how much greenhouse gas does it take to move a human X miles if they are self-powered versus using an ICE?"

For example this study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66170-y.

> our estimates suggest that the net emissions associated with the ‘fuel’ required for driving, walking, and cycling may be comparable in some settings

With the caveat that they're looking at *per-mile* emissions, and nobody in the developed world is walking 60 miles to and from work every day.

However there's an important clarification to your recollection.

- You're correct that eating meat (and dairy) is very carbon-intensive.

- You're not correct that agricultural transportation is significant. It doesn't even make it into the paper above, as far as I could find. Agricultural transportation, even things like flying blueberries to California from Chile, is negligible compared to the carbon cost of food.

You can see that in the following graph. Red is transport. You have to look closely even to see it. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local