Aside from obvious confusion of running a water desalination plant by salinating water, there's one more concern: outside of such installations, don't we have quite a limited supply of fresh water? Sure, saltwater is everywhere, but fresh water is relatively scarce.
Allero
joined 2 years ago
Good. Seriously, I hope such actions will be met with complaints and lawsuits everywhere.
Sexual life is a very sensitive and intimate subject, and it's bad enough that she even had policemen invade it by opening the box (though this in particular is obviously a necessary part of police operations), let alone make a laughing matter out of it.
In general, though, I hope we will be able to eventually get more open about such things, so that it would be seen as a regular set of household items, even if it's hidden from plain sight.
Thanks, will pay closer attention to that.
Care to share examples of such misuse or alternative research?
Here's an example research: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Full text link (courtesy of sci-hub): https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Move to renewable energy. We have the necessary capacity, just keep installing renewable sources and phasing out the rest. Keep nuclear plants operational as long as they're safe, too, but don't waste too much resources building new ones.
Keep on moving electric storage from lithium ion to pumped hydro/sodium ion/other technologies depending on scale. Leave lithium ion for portable electronics and specialized cases only.
Develop better public transit networks, ideally make it free like in some cities. Also, make bicycle lanes mandatory for new neighborhoods, and convert old roads to have bicycle lanes whenever possible. With that, you won't need to ban cars as they'll grow less relevant (although you can increase tax on car sales to raise money and further disincentivise car ownership).
Also, develop high-speed rail whenever it makes sense, as an organic and much more ecological replacement for planes. Make sure they are modular enough to scale for demand, to avoid dragging extra.
Plant more trees and algae to help scrub the extra CO2. Intensify marine plastic collection efforts to assist the natural growth of marine ecosystems.
Ban petroleum-based plastics whenever possible. For most applications, there are more friendly biologically produced options; they are fairly cheap, too, it's just that regular plastic is even cheaper.
Extend reduce-reuse-recycle. Make more places serve into your own tare, make use (on a personal level) of what you normally throw away, and for what you do throw away, make sure it gets into recycling. Get creative! For example, did you know some used plastic bottles can be turned into a 3D printer filament? You can go wherever from there!
Reduce beef production/import and consumption. For what you do consume, make sure it comes from milk breeds, because otherwise you don't share the ecological footprint with the dairy, which skyrockets the footprint of a steak. In any case, beef is the single most terrible food source in terms of ecological footprint, being several times worse than pork, poultry and dozens to hundreds times worse than plant foods.
Oh, and the AI centers currently in construction by tech giants are becoming one extra major point of concern. We should review which of these are actually necessary, because this thing doesn't seem to stop scaling up, with some planned centers consuming as much energy as a major city.
This comment might provide some insights: https://lemmy.zip/comment/21080783
Also, IMO, voluntary or not, this goes over the edge, especially on the streaming part. If someone genuinely enjoys this, they can do it in private, and exactly as they like.
When money and popularity get involved, this prompts more extreme behavior, turning a willing masochist into a victim, and a game into a trap.
Besides, authorities could have at least checked up on him.
Except previously bombarding another person's server for personal gain was illegal.
Locking information into corporate-controlled loops is antithetical to freedom and accessibility.
Having singular proprietary point of entry, or even few of them, into the entire knowledge of mankind is not sharing.
This is the part people are willing to protect. Actual peer-to-peer sharing of information, with as little private choke points as possible.
And having the web ruined by SEO is not an argument to keep going. It's already worse than it should be, and search engines already provide worse quality results than before. This needs to be reversed, not reinforced.
When the Web was first designed, some of the concerns we have today were nonexistent.
I believe in freedom of information, and would love for the information I share to be accessed in any way a given user wants.
But I have to stand defensive and support the author here, too. The modern LLM boom aims to essentially replace original resources with AI-generated summaries step by step. This is detrimental to the Internet, and to knowledge as we know and preserve it.
First, there is an event commonly called Google Zero, which is briefly mentioned in the article. If you don't know what it is, it is the not-so-hypothetical-anymore moment when Google (or, really, any other large player) essentially accumulates all information on the Web, feeds it to AI, and since then doesn't serve links anymore, going straight to answers based on training data. Users will jump to this - they already do - because it offers convenience. But for any independent creators it means having no audience, no money, and no means to produce new quality content, trapping users in a self-containing loop that loses nuance, actuality, and truthfulness, and stays under corporate control. This goes beyond cooking recipes and personal notes - it permeates science, political discussion, and much more.
Second, LLMs multiply traffic coming to sites, which becomes an infrastructural problem. Bots access sites at much higher rates than humans do, and when their intent is to scrape your entire website every now and again and there are dozens of them, this becomes huge.
Third, having proprietary models train on the data I provide without any attribution, copyright etc. makes giant corporation profit off my back, while at the same thing making it so that less genuine users will see what I produce. This means careers of authors, journalists etc. are dying, and this also means they are left free to abuse each and every one of us without any consent.
Fourth, and I wonder if you see it by now, LLMs and the way they represent data, along with SEO tools meant to drive information through the search bots, begin to shape how we talk. All I say doesn't have to be a list of points, yet it is. It could be less verbose, more readable, yet it is the way it is. Because when we interact with the products of such developments too much, we begin shaping our own language in a way that is less human-readable and more meant for machines, without us often being aware of it. This is a real issue of communication.
So, as much as I hate it, I'm gonna protect a lot of the data I share.
I'd want to say "8 billion people", but right now 3000 billionaires lead on.
After all, they maintain their position by masterfully playing people off each other and setting things up to be on top. They have all the resources to extend their influence.
If 8 billion people could turn billionaires voices off for anything larger than a day, then yeah, 8 billion all the way, and 3000 will run out FAST.
But the latter know this, and will never let this happen. We should.
Another thought: what if we would instead use concentrated brine from desalination plant and seawater? Yes, power will be lower, but this way we don't use fresh water that we, erm, try to produce.