Yeah. It’ll solve itself when the habitability of the planet declines enough to prevent the continuation of a high-tech global economy.

Yeah, but have you considered that this kind of technology can’t sustain the delusion idea that you could replace all workers with a chatbot?

That’d be an effective total ban, because noone would want to be on a social media platform with entierly 80+ year olds. It’d be all corny minion memes.

I took a look at the tracker they’re using as a source, and this appears to be (for the few categories I checked the methodology for) referring to mathematically projected deaths, and not literal counted dead humans. I think that’s a pretty important note, especially if we’re titling it “at least 600,000 dead”. I’m not saying noone died, but “I’ve used math to estimate that half a million people died based on this set of assumptions” is a very different statement from “We have tallied up literally half a million dead people over here explicitly because of USAID going away”

I add a chatbot to it.

Natural cooling? Does this dipshit have any idea how hard cooling things in a vacuum is? He’s probably just trying to sucker Sam Altman into announcing he’s “building” his data centers in space (thanks to Blue Origin, naturally) as he is forced to make increasingly ludicrous claims about OpenAI to continue forcing fart gas into the bubble.

I have this sneaking suspicion that this response might be in the Russian “plan”. I have a feeling that the goal is to show that America won’t lift a finger to stop them, and thereby break NATO and badly damage US power. If Poland downs a Russian jet, and Trump says “Hey! You guys have to be nice to Russia” it will read as Russia calling NATO’s bluff while maintaining just enough plausible deniability to likely avoid even European countries from pushing for a real response.

Great powers rearming will not be good for anyone no matter what the context is around it. After Napoleon, European leaders were so afraid of war between great powers that they avoided it for 100 years. The moment they let their guard up we got WW1. The weapons do not make us safer. Don’t think for a moment it can’t happen again.

If she’s banned from running it will be the first instance of a western liberal country reacting appropriately to the resurgence of fascism. Good on France.

We have to keep in mind that Europe needs to justify austerity for the citizens and rearmament for their militaries. I have no evidence of this, but I think it’s an entierly sensible read that the warning from Germany is an overstatement with that intent in mind.

The laptop looks like Kirby when he goes to suck you in in smash while it’s “extended”.

I mean, this is good, but isn’t it the case that they basically pay for this by selling Oil and Gas? That’s not replicable for most nations, and is kinda… like, damaging. I’m glad they did it, but unless their next goal is like, paying India to phase out their fossil fuel industry it kinda feels like pulling the ladder up in a way to me.

Imagine swearing fealty to a monarch in 2024.

So if throwing paint at a entierly replaceable cover for a dusty old painting is too far gone to be acceptable, what action can we take to stop oil production? Like. It needs to stop. To continue producing fossil fuels is a death cult. It needs to stop, like, a decade ago. I ask genuinely, how is this too far, and what is an acceptable response to an existential threat?

edit: On the off chance someone reads this so long after the post, I just want to point out that nobody actually engaged with my question here.