Fair enough, though I have to say that Russia owning most of the nuclear energy stores may not have been as much of an issue prior to the Ukraine war. Germany in particular was widely criticized by many of it's allies for ditching nuclear energy in favor of Russian oil, creating a dependency that bit them later on.

Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia own a significant chunk of the oil and gas market, so why would Russia dominating the nuclear energy market be a deterrence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you here.

I would like to think you're right. — T Clark

Me too, though part of the reason for me saying that is that it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 when DALLE-2 was introduced. Although generations have gotten more detailed and covered more subject matter as a result (I suspect) of models being fed more data, I don't really see much progress being made in addressing the obvious shortcomings that I've mentioned in my previous post, and it doesn't really feel like feeding it more will change that. My guess is that it's because it doesn't understand the world the same way we do, since (to my knowledge) the way it "learns" is largely a matter of statistics.

Now I could be wrong, and things could change rapidly in the next few months but the more time passes the more doubtful I become of that happening. At this point it just seems like society is settling into a harmonious coexistence between AI and human artists.

I can certainly see why it frightens graphic artists. I can see plenty of applications where it could replace human image-making e.g. book covers, posters, advertisements, book illustrations, comic books… — T Clark

To an extent yes. I can see it replacing low level artist jobs involving stock photography and simple generic book covers, but nothing on the level of full on comic books just yet. With regards to depicting complicated scenes, scenes with context, and subjects consistently, those are areas where the AI seems to struggle, and given how it's been advancing over these past 2 years I'm doubtful that those issues will be solved in the short to medium term, at least barring the possibility of a sudden technological breakthrough.

Would be great — jorndoe

Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.

I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.” — Mikie

And I bet their other slogan is "We can't reduce our emissions because we'll be reliant on Chinese technology now that they somehow got a head start in the industry"...

...Or some other reason why we shouldn't do anything. I've sort of heard them all at this point.

Well a good chunk of Florida is gonna be underwater at this rate so there's that.

That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.

Doesn't change the substance of this hypocrisy argument you want to make.

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. — Agree to Disagree

Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.

Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).

I don't think it's a paradox at all. It's only a paradox if one assumes the absolute Newtonian serial time must exist. It's consistent with local becoming. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the case where people assume there is an absolute time or some absolute reference frame, then one doesn't really encounter a paradox either. One of the two observers or some other third party has it right while the others are just plain wrong.

The paradox seems to come about from accepting the relativity of simultaneity, and not taking it seriously enough. It assumes that we can simply stitch together different presents in order to get the conclusion that everything is present which is where this idea of the future being "fixed" comes from.

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. — Hanover

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).

So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.

What's your take on approaches that are less regulatory but promote the research, development, and adoption of green technologies (like with the recently passed IRA in the US)?

Unfortunately, these legal struggles will make Trump even more popular with a large number of Americans. — jgill

More popular with his base, that's for sure. It's less certain when it comes to the rest of the country. I like to think they won't elect an imprisoned felon who will likely try to dismantle the justice system from within if he ever becomes president again, but who the hell knows.

WTF is wrong with the Dems? Biden is six years my junior and I can tell you someone that age should not be president. And then there is VP Harris. — jgill

It's a race to the bottom for both sides. Oddly enough I'd feel pretty good about a party's 2024 chances if they just nominated a generic Rep/Dem while the other side continues to do what they do, but it's looking to be Biden vs. Trump again.

Guess Elon is doing a great job taking care of the bot situation.

Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.

We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children. — Varnaj42

Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.

Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.

Yeah I'm well aware of the grandfather paradox and whatnot, but this thread is about physics and implied time travel.

Not sure if this experiment is old news, but has anyone explained it? — TiredThinker

It's been around for decades and as far as I can tell most physicists still don't believe in time travel. A quick google search and look at the Wiki page gave me that information so I'm not sure why this is being asked here.

Now we see your true colors. — Wayfarer

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.

Sadly things being worse than expected is becoming an incresingly common phrase among alot of climate headlines today so I've learned to factor that into my predictions as well.

I can't think of anyone who thought that getting temperatures below 1.5 C would be achieved, given how sluggish progress has been. Sad but not surprising.

That's why I'm concerned about the infiltration of AI. Not that there won't be real art but that no one will care. Art may become (even more) socially devalued. — Baden

The opposite could also happen too. People have learned to appreciate handcrafted products in the wake of the industrial revolution and mass manufacturing and even now we see people starting to appreciate human made art more now that AI art exists. Of course it's hard to predict how people will react here, but that's just my hope.

Personally I'm more concerned about how corporations will treat the new technology. They may see the technology as being "good enough" and lay off their artists in order to cut costs. In the worst case scenario, we may be heading towards a situation where AI art is worse than human made art but "good enough" for companies to not care about replacing their workers, leading to a media landscape that's more soulless and derivative overall.

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. — NOS4A2

Either this is sophistry or your statement is completely wrong. If you're trying to make some other point then just make it.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy of race. “-ism” means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism. — NOS4A2

Doesn't really tell me what doctrine is being referred to here. If it simply means acknowledging the existence of different races then that's not what most people mean by "racism".

He mentioned moving to a neighborhood with mostly white people and how it's much better citing Don Lemon:

So that’s what I did, I went to a neighbourhood where, you know, they have a very low black population, because unfortunately, you know, there’s a high correlation between the density, and this is according to Don Lemon, by the way. So here, I’m just quoting Don Lemon when he notes that the, when he lived in a mostly black neighbourhood, there are a bunch of problems that he didn’t see in white neighbourhoods. So even Don Lemon sees a big difference in your own quality of living, based on where he lives and who is there.

That's the part I think is more damning.

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

This doesn't tell me anything. What is this "ideology" or "idea" that you're talking about? I don't even know if you intend "race-ism" to be racism.

Have to define what "racism" means here. I usually understand it as the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Obviously the Nazis were racist by that definition, and so is Adams based on his comments (and no I'm not trying to compare Hitler to the Dilbert guy in case you're wondering). Simply asking a question in a poll about race doesn't qualify as racist from my view.

If that black person also brags about moving to a non-white neighborhood, implying some link between race and societal problems then... well personally I don't believe in cancellation no matter what people say (though private businesses and individuals are free to associate or disassociate with whomever for whatever reason) but that sure is racist by any technical definition.

With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. I mean I don't think it will happen (they're already calling for raising the age limit for voting), but one can hope.

Even though this bucked the trend for midterms, it’s still depressing that so many were so close, and the Republicans get the house regardless. — Mikie

Funny to think that they're gonna win the House purely due to gerrymandering given what the final margins are likely gonna be.

All those Bolzonaro's, Viktor Orban's etc. show that too much left liberal push might create a counterpush (and vice versa, of course). — ssu

I don't disagree with that, but when it comes to figures like Trump, I think he came into power more because he was a populist (or at least pretended to be, he ultimately just governed like a standard Republican) when people were sick of the establishment.

The Brazilians were an inch away from reelecting Bolsonaro just last week. The US may be insane, but it's not the only country we need to worry about.

Voting for conservative will not change the economy for the marginal income groups (which are composed of quite a few million people). Voting for the Democrats will not change the economy for the marginal income groups either. Our political system (like some others) repeatedly offers empty choices to the electorate. — Bitter Crank

Pretty much. Voting is mostly just a way for people to vent their current frustration at the status quo and they're dissatisfied with that the majority of the time. Rarely is it about long term policy or ideology which is unfortunate since the current GOP's ideology is atrocious.

I don't think that the Dems will hold on to power for this years midterms, but I'm honestly mostly content that the Dems were able to get something done this time around on climate, drug prices, and healthcare, even if it's not much. The IRA is a popular bill (as is the larger BBB which didn't pass) regardless of people's opinions about the Democratic party, but people will forget it by next month and vote for the Republicans and their tax cuts anyways, which people will forget about too.

The millions of extremely rich, very rich, and merely rich income groups will be well taken care of. — Bitter Crank

Don't forget the military.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point?

The GOP are gonna do it anyways the next time they get power and it may likely be the only thing they do like during the Trump years. It's sort of their answer to everything (that and cutting social programs but that's more of a means to fund their tax breaks).

On the bright side at least in the UK it doesn't look like the conservatives have much of a chance the next time a general election happens. Though who knows since voters have very short attention spans and 2025 is some ways away.

They'll try again the next time they get the chance. The only reason why they couldn't this time was because of that meddling UK economy.

Before then though, I expect the GOP in the US to ride into power through inflation-concerned voters and try to pull off the exact same thing, perhaps more successfully.

So I guess DeSantis will be the GOP nominee then in 2024?

According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?

I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist.

The GOP have to face reality at some point about the unpopularity of their policies. — Xtrix

No they don't. They've gotten away with it for decades by making people focus on the culture war.

Just call abortions "woke" and the self described libertarians will line up to vote away their freedoms.

I kind of knew that already going in since Manchin was calling for it for months. Progressives have largely accepted the poison pill in favor of the long term goal. Plus they may be more okay with the oil and gas leasing given the current situation with global gas supplies. Everyone knew that they were dealing with a coal baron from West Virginia, which was why they killed the CEPP. If there's anyone who you should thank for the clean energy tax provisions it's Ron Wyden who's been so on top of this whole thing that he approached Manchin about this very deal 8 years ago when Obama was still president. He's even keeping regular conversations with Sinema on taxes since he's probably aware of the current situation regarding getting her support.

Alot of experts still think that this will significantly cut down climate emissions so I'll take it.

No it was way more complicated than that. Manchin killed the last bill because he had concerns about the fact that it didn't tax the rich enough and that he didn't like the temporary programs (in particular the Child Tax Credit, which was only extended for 1 year because of a compromise deal with him because he didn't like it). At least that what he told a WV radio show host back in December.

Then after months of saying he's willing to continue talking and ignoring people's requests to restart negotiations to instead tell people that those negotiations aren't happening, he laid out a climate, drug price, and deficit reduction bill that he said he wanted to pass. This would be funded by tax increases, and according to him the deficit reduction was the "best way" to fight inflation. This was what he urged the Democrats to do in response to inflation.

Then two more months pass and when it looked like talks were restarting in May on that very bill Manchin wanted everyone to pass, Manchin out of the blue sidelined those talks for bipartisan climate talks with people who don't believe in climate change. The only thing bipartisan agreement he managed to get was for both sides, Democrats and Republicans, to come into the same room and agree that this was all pointless. That shaved off an entire month off the clock when Democrats were urging Manchin that there wasn't much time left, and set the stage for the time crunch we saw in July.

And just when it looked like things were finally about to come to an agreement, Manchin suddenly had a realization that because of concerns about inflation he cannot do the tax increases in the bill which would've hindered the deficit reduction funding in the bill which would've, according to Manchin's own metrics, hindered fighting inflation. In exchange he was willing to do a temporary health care bill instead, because if the BBB bill negotiations taught us anything, he was perfectly fine with that.

And now he's kind of reversed that last position. I suppose somebody came up to him and told him that it was his own inflation fighting bill and he came to his senses. Either that or because the Democrats played the Republicans (a rare instance) because they threatened to block the CHIPs bill from passing if they realized that the Democrats were trying to cut the deficit. I mean, they just blocked veteran's aid because of it so yeah.

All in all, Manchin is a fucking nightmare to negotiate with. But he was the reason why the bill was kept up for so long and given the state of most of the congressional Democrats, then I imagine they're willing to just take what he's offering them. The only wildcard is Sinema who seems to love holding corrupt shitty positions and not telling anyone about it. Then again the bill was designed around her strict tax demands, she's stated she won't change her position in this new round of negotiations months ago, and she apparently seems to genuinely care about the climate stuff in BBB. Then again she's also a diva so who knows.