> If the surgeon were the father of the man (the one who died), then the cousin couldn’t be his son (unless there's some very unusual family structure going on involving double relationships, which riddles don’t usually intend).
> Therefore, the only straightforward explanation is:
> The surgeon is the cousin’s parent — specifically, his mother.
Imagine a future where this reasoning in a trial decides whether you go to jail or not.
Graphic designers I think are safe, at least within organizations that require a cohesive brand strategy. Getting the AI to respect all of the previous art will be a challenge at a certain scale.
Getting graphic designers to use the design system that they invented is quite a challenge too if I'm honest... should we really expect AI to be better than people? Having said that AI is never going to be adept at knowing how and when to ignore the human in the loop and do the "right" thing.
There are people generating mostly consistent AI porn models using LORA, the same strategy could be used to bias the model towards consistent output for corporate branding.
Even if its not perfect, many startups will be using AI to generate their branding for the first 5 years and put others out of a job.
Right now the tools are primitive, but leave it to the internet to pioneer the way with porn...
This is not true. Almost everything in mobile phones exploit human brain biases to keep us hooked. It's about regaining control of what you want to use your time for.
Coal plants have killed a minimum of 500k people over the past 20 years[1]. It's not an accident in that case, it's known and planned for (or at least easily predicted enough that it should have been).
But when a few hundred people, or really just 0 people[2] die in one place at one time, people lose their minds.
I tried to do the math once to figure out if Japan would have been better off building a coal power plant instead of Fukushima, the nuclear plant that had the worst disaster in any western country. It was a surprisingly tough question.
Those studies of coal plant deaths are basically only counting people who died in mining disasters or were killed while operating the power plant. If you add in climate change effects, air pollution including radiation from flyash, and groundwater pollution the figure is almost certainly much worse; but also very hard to calculate with any certainty.
First off - plenty of people are against coal plants for health reasons in addition to the environmental reasons. There is nobody cheering coal and blocking nuclear (and please don't bring up the Germany decommissioning of nuclear plants and keeping open coal plants because it doesn't speak to what I just said). Secondly, Three Mile Island represents the path to a possible outcome. Just because disaster was averted doesn't mean that the thinking about safety shouldn't be focused on the worst case scenario instead of the one that actually happened.
I’m not the person you responded to, but have an honest question here since we are specifically talking about NIMBYism: How much less of NIMBY is there against coal power plants? For example are there examples of people rejecting NPP in their vicinity while accepting CPP?
The worse impacts of coal plants disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to be effective NIMBYs.
Coal also has a much wider low-level impact: for instance, it's not safe to consume more than small amounts of fish from the great lakes because of mercury levels, largely due to coal power plants.
Germany has been closing tons of nuclear power plants because of protests. They've recently also moved an entire town and a highway to make space for digging up more coal.
I'm not really answering your question, but it does seem like nuclear NIMBYs are more effective than other ones.
They get a fairer run than nuclear - it is conceivable that a coal plant gets built and is allowed to run. However I imagine the US followed the same broad trends as everyone else in the 90s and started restricting infrastructure construction for environmental reasons so it is probably quite challenging to get a plant built.
There is a reason all the growth is happening in Asia. Their focus is on improving their wealth and material standard of living.
How is that a valid comparison though? Fighting against a coal plant makes sense, fighting against a nuclear plant doesn't - that's the key difference.
The context of the discussion is Not In My Backyard-protests and blocking of plants. Are the people protesting one in their “backyard” not protesting the other?
It's only PM2.5 deaths because those are un-debatable.
Far more will die due to other kinds of pollution it emits, and an unknowable number will die due to the effects of climate change caused by CO2 emissions.
Well, not coal plants but emissions. I guess those nymbis would also be against having all that pollution concentrated in their back yard.
My point is that it is not insane. Maybe selfish. Not willing to have risks with potential catastrophic results near your home is the most normal thing.
And with nuclear, the probability is very low, as with planes. Yet it happens. All the time. Our generation went through three once in a lifetime crisis in the last two decades.
It's insane because killing people is the modus operandi of fossil fuel power - and I'm not even talking about climate change. People often die on oil fields and in mines, toxic waste from coal plants leaches into our water supply, and ash enters our air and causes asthma and heart problems. Coal alone has killed about 460,000 Americans in the 21st century: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow...
Nobody died at Fukushima (from the nuclear incident that is, 10000 died because of the Tsunami)
Hundreds of people died at Chernobyl.
Those are all the major accidents at production nuclear power plant that have ever occured. There are no others.
There is just one that was deadly, and it is about as representative of the safety of nuclear power as flying in a 1920s' plane compared to a state of the art Airbus.
That's still pretty much a freak incident and insignificant compared to the direct damage (i.e. even if we exclude CO2) burning fossil fuels (especially coal is causing)
Accidents will happen daily. Those accidents are extremely well controlled. You are providing an excellent example by jumping to that insane NIMBY conclusion. I think MS can successfully bulldozer these extremely weak arguments about catastrophic accidents better than I could. Stay tuned.
There are teachers out there asking students to look up words in their phone. They forget to add "and please ignore all notifications, games, etc. while you're at it".
And then there are kahoots, which makes learning a game (you don't need effort!) and exercises are automatically corrected (so teachers don't need effort either).
Since I got kids I realized how they are the weakest link in the chain and are targeted by everyone. From tobacco (at the end nobody starts smoking at 30), to "free" cartoons (peppa pig backpack is not free, though), school book sellers. Heck, even the school this year pressured to put my kid in their social media.
There is a whole world of people making their living out of your kids.
Sorry for the rant. This is just another two. Does not surprise me.
Yes. And as parent one must fight against multiple multibillion dollar industries. Starting with food ending with toys, games, influencers and everything in between.
I was neutral when I started working in cellphone industry and kids were small. Now when I see how teens siting in the corner watching worthless stupid YouTube videos on the phone for hours I don’t feel well. Luckily I quit that industry and think it’s a cousin of big tobacco at the end despite advertisements telling some other things.
Also sugary sweets are aimed at children, for whom a dose of sugar probably hits much harder. As someone who managed to quit sugar, it was like a drug addiction.
It is worse than a drug addiction because drugs aren't basic biochemical building blocks. Going cold turkey on all carbs isn't exactly mainstream nutrition.
Just a data point: In Valencia, Spain, in the 80s, children played in the street with no much supervision from parents. Occasionally we would stop the football match to let a car drive by. Forgetting your keys at home was no issue, you could get a glass of milk in ten different places while you wait for other (more attentive) members of your family.
Nowadays there is hardly a place to park your car. Parents don't allow kids to play in the street. And the ones that interact with each other are the ones who lived there in that period. It's very difficult for newcomers to integrate.
What are the reasons for this? My take: cars and lack of stay at home mums. They built the social network at that time. They took care of each other children, the were there to help each other. Nowadays households have both adults working (so nobody even asks for salt to the neighbor, all order a pizza instead).
We tried to counteract this with our own children by giving them a lot of freedom.
But these things are very network dependent. Yes we let our kids play in the street and bike around the neighborhood, but it is boring because there are not any other kids to play with, so they don't do it much.
There's now an intolerance to letting kids play freely.
And if you do let your kids play freely, and something happens - they get hurt, they break something, they're being loud, there's the attitude from others of "why aren't you watching your f*ing kid?".
>> There's now an intolerance to letting kids play freely.
Worth noting that streets are a lot more dangerous now due to the large number of huge trucks that everyone drives. If your kid gets hit by one of them while playing, chances are they won't survive. Hell, the driver may not even notice.
I think you're on to something. Everyone always talks about social media but I honestly think cars are the most harmful technology of our time. Not least because it's not even recognised by the vast majority of people yet. Social media is at least given lip service.
Everyone working all the time sucks for many reasons. It's a trap that people have fallen for and the only ones laughing are the billionaire oligarchs. Women in particular used to work for themselves and their families, building their own assets and their own relationships. Almost like that "founder" status everyone wants. Now they work for the same few men as their partners building wealth for those men and the closest the family has to a home cooked meal is a favourite takeaway.
> Women in particular used to work for themselves and their families, building their own assets and their own relationships. Almost like that "founder" status everyone wants. Now they work for the same few men as their partners building wealth for those men and the closest the family has to a home cooked meal is a favourite takeaway.
I'd caution you not to conflate home-cooked meals and family dinners with restrictive gender roles. It's possible to have them without a stay-at-home wife. For example, I grew up with two moms working full-time and had home-cooked meals (or leftovers thereof) for dinner almost every day. It's of course harder to make time to cook when both parents are working, but not impossible.
Keeping our discussion to Spain, women have been able to manage their own assets for a long time (including married woman). Let's not project english law onto the whole world.
It also takes generations for the rights to fully take effect, for example women being refused services by sexist men or hitting glass ceilings at work.
Even in the US, I can see very different changes in the treatment and expectations of my older women cousins who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s versus those who grew up in the 2000s and 2010s.
Same laws, but the rate of change from those laws accelerated as older generations died out and critical mass in the population with the new views takes hold.
Interesting, usually cars are characterized as anti social elements. These are loud, take lots of space, so lower density, polluting and require license and you can't drink alcohol. Bikes on the other hand are considered more friendly as human centric element
Same in Philippines in the 90s. We’d be out all day and come back at dinner time. There was no pedo. I think kidnapping and pedophile are overblown in media. Whole neighborhood would just play on the streets. No nanny.
We have 8 billion people on the planet. And there is no plan what so ever to take care of even half of them. It doesn't matter if we see slowing population growth. With globalization there is no reason to be sitting in the same spot. People are on the move.
Lived in French Jura for 5 years. It is so beautiful. And I am not the only one to have noticed. The Last Man or Frankenstein have also the Jura mountains as landscape.
> Therefore, the only straightforward explanation is:
> The surgeon is the cousin’s parent — specifically, his mother.
Imagine a future where this reasoning in a trial decides whether you go to jail or not.
reply