71–80 of 166 posts
We may lose stable seasons for growing crops, but at least the chat bot can embed an ad into your question while you wait for your burrito taxi. What is the point of this convenience when it really seems to just be making people miserable and isolated? We're driving off a cliff, and our elected government has a death drive.
Well, at least the frogs won't notice it.
The myth that frogs stay in water until boiled has been debunked with actual frogs - at some point they just jump out.
Which makes using it as a metaphor for the climate change and humanity either entirely wrong or much more fitting, depending on where you stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except many of the same champions of AI are also speaking out against population decline (Musk, Altman, Bezos, etc)
they want to reduce people to have possibility to create AI centres... Highlander rules
Population decline from collapsing birthrates should help.
Except many of the same champions of AI are also speaking out against population decline (Musk, Altman, Bezos, etc)
We may lose stable seasons for growing crops, but at least the chat bot can embed an ad into your question while you wait for your burrito taxi. What is the point of this convenience when it really seems to just be making people miserable and isolated? We're driving off a cliff, and our elected government has a death drive.
Stop focusing on energy usage and start focusing on energy generation. It doesn't matter how much energy we consume if it comes from renewables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP did not say this is what we were doing. Said this is what we should do. What we are doing is attempting to hold back progress on generation while subsidizing demand, which is literally the absolute dumbest possible thing. Unless you are the fossil fuel industry. Then it’s great.
It's also great if boiling the planet is your actual goal. I wouldn't have thought that it would be so popular, but apparently it is, and people can't get t done fast enough. I'm kind of a misanthrope so philosophically I'm good with working on wiping ourselves out. The fact that we're doing it in the dumbest possible way should feel poetic. Instead it's just kind of embarrassing.
There is something tragic about the human potential being wasted in the most retarded of endeavors, but I wouldn't be able to imagine of a more apt way for the horde of morons that inhabit this planet to go extinct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except many of the same champions of AI are also speaking out against population decline (Musk, Altman, Bezos, etc)
It's a real weird contradiction. They don't want the population to decline but they also want to replace everyone's jobs with AI and skip out on UBI. So what's the point?
We may lose stable seasons for growing crops, but at least the chat bot can embed an ad into your question while you wait for your burrito taxi. What is the point of this convenience when it really seems to just be making people miserable and isolated? We're driving off a cliff, and our elected government has a death drive.
> your burrito taxi Which you are financing through a BNPL platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that the per capita graph is more informative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
Why does per capita matter when it’s the total emissions that we actually care about? Wonderful, the United States uses more per capita than anyone else. That doesn’t mean anything in terms of total warming. Even if we cut to zero we still continue.
With twice as many people (acting similarly) you have twice the emissions, it's as simple as that.
To reduce emissions, you need everyone doing their part. And it is also obviously easier and more effective to tackle high-emitters first (because incentivizing a single US family to have their second car be a bit smaller and electric is obviously less burdensome than banning 3 Indian families from heating their homes in winter...)