alexgmcm

That makes sense if these price rises reflect real shortages of goods and not just more money in the economy.

Essentially, we are seeing cost-push inflation and it's not clear when it will go away given the supply chain problems.

> People keep saying we can feed 10 billion people. We can. But at what cost to the diversity of biological systems?

Also those 10 billion people in the future will be consuming far more per capita as developing nations continue to industrialise.

This is a good thing as everyone deserves a decent life. But if we are all going to have a decent life without destroying the planet then we need to be mindful of how many of us we can sustainably support.

I mean "Stop at two" isn't a particularly awful policy, yet that is sufficient to curtail population growth.

I doubt it even needs to be a policy in many countries - I don't know many people with more than two kids.

A dam bursting can cause mass fatalities, it's definitely a lot more severe than a minor inconvenience.

And the alternative to nuclear at the moment isn't really solar or hydropower (most places aren't suitable for it) but rather coal and gas. And those are continually polluting the environment not just with CO2 but also carcinogens and other pollutants.

Of that list of accidents only Chernobyl is still uninhabitable, so it's hardly "literal millennia"

Three Mile Island didn't even kill anyone and many believe neither did Fukushima.

If Le Pen or Zemmour get through to the second round then I imagine Macron will win, as voters unite to avoid them winning, much as happened in the previous elections.

Although I guess Le Pen and Zemmour might split each others vote, preventing them from reaching the second round.

And the Paradise Papers as well.. but who knows - third time lucky?

I also left a PhD in the field (albeit right at the very start of the PhD) but this was also my impression.

I was shocked at how bad the state of the literature was with so many dubious papers, especially since the explosion of ML techniques.

I came from a Physics background and there you could generally trust the literature was legit and not just smoke and mirrors to get published.

Have EEG devices improved much in recent years?

I read some books by Nicolelis' several years ago and it seemed back then that really useful BCI's still required invasive surgery because not only do you need to gather signals from a large number of neurons you also need to be able to distinguish them (and in EEG the signals are merged together and then further obscured by the effect of the skull etc.)

It will be interesting to see how much adoption Neuralink can get with the invasive approach.

Does the salary compensate the amount of effort to get there though?

I had a friend who was a chemist but she left the field to pursue data science instead after her pharmaceutical company started even more layoffs in R+D - it seems pharma companies are more interested in intellectual property law than drug development these days.

Just ban the fiat exchanges.

The hardcore crypto types would carry on using it but like 95% would give up - that's sufficient.

It worked quite well at first - I mean they had Sputnik, Gagarin etc. not bad for a country that was some backwards serfdom just half a century before.

But then they lost their ambition - a major point being when they stopped trying to develop their own computing technology and just reverse engineered IBM chips instead.

I did Physics and turned out okay (I work in Data Science now) but a lot of that seemed like good fortune.

I think the future for CS education could definitely be online courses - the Nand2Tetris course has stuck with me more than anything I did at University, for example. And Prof. Roughgarden's Algorithms courses were similarly high quality.

Really I think once online courses work out how to solve the credential problem and actually get taken seriously by employers, the college bubble could burst.

I'd argue it's still worthwhile for degrees like Computer Science if only because HR like candidates to have a degree. (Although this is slowly eroding and may change in the next decade or so)

But the value of less directly applicable degrees like the humanities, social sciences and arts has decreased a lot.

I think in the past simply having been to University, irrespective of the major, was a strong signal. Nowadays graduates are a dime-a-dozen so you'd better have a major that brings real value to your employer.

Plus a lot of the younger generations may have older family members who graduated from college yet have little to show for it.

Having seen Threads, I'm not sure surviving a nuclear war would even be desirable.