"The landowner can continue farming, growing and harvesting timber, or however else they use their land."
This isn't exactly true. The land trusts can dictate the use of the land to some degree, depending on their terms. Changes to the land such as a gravel driveway (a non-permeable surface according to them) or a new barn could require approval from the trust.
Instead od shorting NVIDIA, why not invest in stocks that would benefit from AI failures? Or diversify by investing in AI competitors, such as Alphabet (vertical integration with TPUs).
The 4000 out of 700000 number doesn't seem quite right to me. That seems like maybe an average rate being applied to a cohort that doesn't match the average population. It would be more telling to compare deaths that were suspicious and missing persons numbers than all deaths.
That said, I would assume the government would monitor statistics like this as part of standard counter intelligence operations so they could see any patterns of potential issues as they pop up.
Oddly enough this exact topic came in another thread, and CDC mortality tables [1] are kind of eye opening for those who don't realize how brief life is. Take just the 25-44 year old bracket (which is probably conservative here given we're speaking of an older cohort) and the death rate is approximately 140/100k per year. For a sample of 700k people that'd be about 980 per year, around 1800 over 22 months.
Their estimate is more than twice that, but that is probably simply because of a higher age estimation. Mortality rates skyrocket upwards rapidly. At the 35-55 bracket we're already somewhere around 300/100k, which would be around 4k. And that age bracket is probably closer to reality than 25-44. Whatever the exact figure is going to be, 4k is probably a pretty decent ballpark.
And many of those deaths are going to be unusual, because pretty much all deaths at younger ages are unusual. A bit paradoxical given how 'regularly' it happens, when you look at the scale of society.
There's some data on that here [1] - page 19. It depends on the exact age range. For everybody under 45 the leading cause of death is unintentional injury by a wide margin. It's unclear what percent of that would be car crashes. Cancer and other stuff catches up pretty quickly in the 45-54 age range and becomes overwhelmingly dominant by the 55+ group. So it depends on exactly what age range we're talking about.
Similar thing for Discovery or History channel show about Dragons. It went on about how they could breath fire by eating platinum rich ore from their dens or something. I was very confused - why would an otherwise reputable channel show absolute fiction, and if it was true why wouldn't this be all over the news. Then at the end they said it was fictional. What garbage.
Did you think the documentary about dragons was real? Seems like it would have been obvious given the subject. Or maybe, does your perception of the channel's reputation change the lens you view the content with?
Clearly I questioned it the whole time, hence the confusion.
"Seems like it would have been obvious given the subject."
Same thing for the mermaid show mentioned before.
"Or maybe, does your perception of the channel's reputation change the lens you view the content with?"
Channel reputation is the wrong word. Channel programming type would be more appropriate. This was back when those channels had educational programming and not the garbage shows they have today. It's more like finding a fiction book in the section that's supposed to be non-fiction.
If I remember the studies right, removing the plaque doesn't reverse the dementia, and some drugs that show improvements in the dementia don't remove the plaque. There's clearly other stuff going on.
Cost-effective might not be the best description. If the B2 is able to target SAMs with very low losses, then it could still be cost-effective compared to significant losses of other airframes and crews.
Cost-effective is the best description. It doesn't have to be a totality. For total operation costs (training/missions/acquisition/maintenance/capabilites), the B-52 is cheaper by orders of magnitude.
The B-2 does have its place and is better suited for certain jobs, albeit at too high a cost. The B-21 is purported to lower that. We'll see.
Edit: Looks like current B-2 operational/maintenance costs are now down to only about 2x that of the B-52, which is an impressive reduction (no sarcasm).
With eight engines mounted on external nacelles, it is the complete opposite of stealth. You need complete air superiority to use it without fear of being shot down.
The eight engines is a side effect of of how large the aircraft is vs how big the engines of the day were. they are basically business jet engines by modern standards.
During the recent engine replacement project using one full sized engine per boom instead of the twin small engine nacelle was seriously considered. So 4 engines instead of 8. I suspect the reason the twin nacelle was kept was that going to 4 engines required more engineering rework than they were happy with. It certainly would have improved the b-52's range and fuel efficiency.
Either way probably a net zero on the stealth consideration.
Fun fact: with the re-engine project the b-52 now has the same engines as the A-10.
You're still only talking about the cost side. You're not talking about the effect side. So they're 2x the cost, but how much did they save in reduced casualties?
One does not simply take out a SAM system with a cruise missile, especially when that SAM system can also target the cruise missile. So how do you get a cruise missile to launch from the right spot where the SAM system radar can’t see it coming?
Sure they are - the s300 system for example can be redployed quite rapidly & some like Buk have the radar even integrated with the launcher.
Also only the radar really transmits, so even if you hit it the, separate launchers might still be intact & guided by another radar if you don't destroy them.
This is why modern remotely guided middle strike drones are so dangerous for SAMs - they can basically search an area for all the SAM system components and destroy them all or most of them. Potentially much more effective than a homing missile hitting just the radar at maximum.
The b-52's role on the modern battlefield is basically a cruise missile truck. It lets you launch a bunch of cruise missiles(cough, I mean kamikazi drones, gotta use the modern lingo) from random locations.
They have renewable only energy plans. So the choices do exist. Not to mention that the choice to go without something is a valid choice. If one believes strongly enough about something, then they will sacrifice for it.
People want the products. Industry wouldn't exist, or not at this scale, without that. The easiest way to see this is air travel. The vast majority of it is unnecessary - business trips that could be a zoom call, vacations, shipping, etc. People got to every place on earth using trains and ships before air travel. Possible exceptions are medical transport and some types of products, which are tiny by comparison. So yeah, pretty much all on the consumer choices.
For instance, consumers want fast and high speed rail and light rail in cities, yet the federal government is still subsidizing hundreds of billions of dollars to car centric projects rather than allowing municipalities and state governments to have control over those funds they come with strings attached that force them to choose car centric options.
Affordable housing is another example. Consumers want reliable cheap homes but every single attempt to unseat obtuse regulations and policies that make home bulldog a nightmare across metropolitan areas all over the Us entrenched home owners fight in as many ways possible to keep new homes from being built. This pushes more people into farther out suburbs that makes an existing issue even worse.
So no, it’s not all consumer choices, not even “pretty much”.
The false dichotomy that it’s simply choice is not a good faith argument.
The other flip of the coin is this: people can consume in ecologically smart and sustainable ways, and often given the choice they do but lack of choice exists across most sectors that don’t allow them to or are knowingly priced higher than the alternative options due to poor regulation or lack of proper subsidy on the scale of the dirty alternative.
And we subsidize a lot when it comes to oil, natural gas and coal, let alone other industrial polluting industries.
"For instance, consumers want fast and high speed rail and light rail in cities, yet the federal government is still subsidizing hundreds of billions of dollars to car centric projects rather than allowing municipalities and state governments to have control over those funds they come with strings attached that force them to choose car centric options."
Oftentimes that comes from road taxes, so it's really car use subsidizing the car-centric projects. If states and municipalities (and the voters) really want it, then why aren't they subsidizing the public transport options... choices - there arent that many who want it bad enough to pay for it.
"Affordable housing is another example. Consumers want reliable cheap homes but every single attempt to unseat obtuse regulations and policies that make home bulldog a nightmare across metropolitan areas all over the Us entrenched home owners fight in as many ways possible to keep new homes from being built. This pushes more people into farther out suburbs that makes an existing issue even worse."
Not really. Consumer polling shows people want things like bigger, fancier single family homes over basic small apartments. Of course they only want them in "good" neighborhoods too. These preferences are choices.
"The false dichotomy that it’s simply choice is not a good faith argument."
Dichotomy implies there are only two choices. I'm simply following the logic and data. As soon as you give people the resources for "better" housing/transport/etc they take it, regardless of the externalities. Check the size and quality of new homes, the requirements and accessories for new cars, etc. The standards and options for things only goes up as the affordability does. If you can show this is not true, then I'd love to see real world examples of the majority of people choosing smaller homes, simplier cars, etc when affordability is not a factor.
"And we subsidize a lot when it comes to oil, natural gas and coal,"
Do you have examples? Most of the recent subsidies in the past decade and tax credits I've seen have been around solar, more efficient appliances, etc.
Oftentimes that comes from road taxes, so it's really car use subsidizing the car-centric projects.
The various vehicle taxes haven't fully covered roadway expansion and maintenance for years. The national average is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of costs, I believe.
No it's not on consumer choice. The US government is SUBSIDIZING gasoline when it should be taxing it at a higher rate because of the environmental side-effects. This is standard economics theory, you tax any form of an environmental damage (e.g. carbon) at the rate of what it costs to clean it up.
Can you give me some examples of gas being subsidized?
"This is standard economics theory, you tax any form of an environmental damage (e.g. carbon) at the rate of what it costs to clean it up."
Again, that's a choice for which the population's opinions differ. You have some people who would tax people for existing because of their carbon dioxide output, body heat, space they take up, etc.
Gasoline is heavily taxed as well, far in excess of the subsidies it receives compared to typical consumer goods. Jet fuel itself has almost no tax net of its subsidies, however passenger aviation is also heavily taxed compared to most consumer goods. It is for sure incorrect in both cases to say that these goods are “heavily subsidized” as a way to absolve consumers of any responsibility for their ecological choices.
If there was enough demand for high speed rail, couldn't a company form a profitable business model to provide that service? Many people don't take trains because the service is abysmal in the US. People who visit Europe tend to use the trains and prefer it over flying. It seems we're in a chicken and egg situation in the US. Even subsidies to Amtrak don't seem to fix the issue.
And if you believe in the fair distribution of the benefits of automation and AI in the population. IMHO, this belief is the more unrealistic one, at least in the short term.
"and we still can't seem to convince some people this is real."
There will always be outliers who don't believe something. But even for the people who do believe climate change is real, there is a huge variance of how we should address it. Most people have more immediate problems. Many take the same type of argument as the infinite population growth is good crowd - future tech will save us.
This isn't exactly true. The land trusts can dictate the use of the land to some degree, depending on their terms. Changes to the land such as a gravel driveway (a non-permeable surface according to them) or a new barn could require approval from the trust.
reply