noknownsender

This was with a two-stone advantage for the strongest-ever human player, apparently.

It also accepted GEESE

Isn't that potentially a $15k detection method?

That's always been my take.

The first 75% of most of his books are among my favorite recent books.

I've never enjoyed an ending.

I think the second half of your comment argues against the first.

You're right that people are unwilling to make the basic changes that are obviously needed. But we only know precisely that those changes would work to fight against climate change because we are able to say with certainty that those behaviors are contributing factors.

Any suggested actions have to have some level of scientific credibility to be taken seriously. Without it, they are easily dismissed by claiming that the planet is too complex to know if our actions will make a difference.

That, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, has been the exact argument used against making any changes, and against the fact that warming was happening in the first place, and against tobaccos cancer risk, and any other public policy proposal that goes against the interest of those profiting from the status quo.

If there is a potion of the population that is "sitting on the fence about climate change", it is highly unlikely that they "can be convinced by a clear and well founded explanation of what is happening"

Anybody capable of that, would either no longer be sitting on the fence, or are highly unlikely to be reading this article.

Also, the basic premise of your comment assumes that the effects on the monthly temperature can be cleanly broken down categorically into "fossil fuel related" and "El Nino related", which presupposes that a stronger and more frequent El Nino events are unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels.

The facts the human impact on climate change are overwhelming, both in their abundance and scope of impact. Pretending that they don't exist, or treating them as a tangential issue to be put aside so as to appeal to a skeptical and/or ignorant minority, serves no purpose other than to undercut the facts.

I assume he means at the device level.

Love that.

I'm going to use this example for years.

Some of us are really just that cynical.

Same.

I avoided reading up on it too deeply, because it seemed to be much bigger than I was expecting, and I didn't believe they'd get something that big through congressional gridlock.

I basically assumed there were some poison pills baked in, and nothing much would come of it.

And weirdly, their whole 'hurry and make a clone of this popular app' industry may be uniquely suited to creating new ways to interface with developing AI tools

Bud light accounted for over 9% of Americas domestic beer sales last year.

That just puts workers' retirement funds on the open market, to be abused by any friend of their fund manager.

I've experienced this a lot myself.

It's weird.

I used to be considered a Digital Native.

Now I feel like an outsider on the internet.