How can you guarantee this ? From the article, it was the result of campaigns, not affirmative action. Not saying you're in the wrong, but it would be nice to provide proof from what you're assuming.
Is it really a game changer though ? AFAIK countries that made the shift to solar and wind can't still store they energy and have to rely on fossil still to power they country (e.g. Germany). On top of that, if the whole world made the shift to solar, wind and batteries, I assume the scarcity of some materials will become an issue. According to this [1] Lithium for example is expected to have a shortage by 2025. There are also challenges like usable surface, and making all the intermittent, non-controllable energy work together. I mean, I am open to the idea of solar/wind, but "game changer"... Doesn't seem so easy
Watching what China does is always instructive. Despite platitudes to the contrary, climate change is a tertiary concern of theirs. What they care most about is (1) energy independence and (2) cost. So 10-15 years ago they started building a lot of nuclear, solar and coal.
As the cost of solar plummeted and nuclear went up they significantly scaled back their nuclear ambitions. For the last 5 years they've built several TW's of solar capacity and a similar amount of coal peaker plants to run when the sun isn't shining.
Now in 2024 they're starting to scale back coal and they're building massive batteries instead. IOW, batteries are now cheaper than coal to offset the intermittency of solar.
> they significantly scaled back their nuclear ambitions.
Currently (June 2024) they're all the way down to:
China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.
China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).
From 2008 to 2023, China’s share of all nuclear patents increased from 1.3 percent to 13.4 percent, and the country leads in the number of nuclear fusion patent applications.
If they want 150 online by 2035, most of them would have been started by now and/or you would expect to see capacity accelerating. Instead, capacity additions appear to be slowing down, in contrast to the massive additions in the 2010's.
Exactly, that's the same question. At least the parent I replied too is a bunch of open source scripts that anyone can monitor. But I'm not sure I'd install a closed source OS
Sure, but the companies have a different plan. The creative and skilled tasks are also where you have to hire the most expensive employees to do the job, and so cutting them is a dream for most investors. From a pure business standpoint the things "best left to humans" are the ones where the human is the cheapest option for the same result. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are correct. My comment could also be read as "we are sick of companies putting profits over people with this disasterously cancerous 'growth at all costs' mindset." The AI boom is just the latest boil on our collective behinds, with that in mind.
Sounds more like an optional way people can interact with the creators. Currently you can only send DM, spamming their inboxes, or reacting to a post. The creators won't be fake, but the interactions with their communities will be
OK, but my impression of Meta is even lower than it was before.
Until now, I didn't trust Meta, but I trusted the people & creators I connected with. Now I don't feel like I will trust anything at all on a Meta platform.
That makes me a lot less interested in using the platforms at all.
That ship has long since sailed already. As other commenters in the thread pointed out, plenty of "online social media personalities" already hire dozens to hundreds of offshore workers to impersonate them in chats. When you have 10M fans, and let's say 0.1% of them want to chat with you all day, that's still 10K people.
Maybe screw the opening ceremony of the Olympics to keep saying that "western countries are falling apart" ? It has been a classic rethoric of Russia media for a while.
There has been 800,000 people affected by this outage and the opening ceremony is at 7pm tonight, so probably connected.
> there is significant brain drain from many countries to the U.S. and that contributes to our success
And I find it so tragic. It means that the best elements of a given country are being sucked out of it. How can this country ever get better if the best elements just leave it ? Immigration exists because some parts of the world just suck, with corrupt governments, wars, you name it. I don't see how anyone can be happy of migrations, it means fleeing your home and leaving your roots. I don't think most migrations are something to be happy about.
Its only tragic if you think of the world as a bunch of sports teams winning points, rather than a planet occupied by the human race. Would you rather the researcher toil fruitlessly in their home country that lacks the funding to properly support a good research environment? Or would you rather they had the opportunity to actually conduct their experiments or build their invention? They will draft a patent or a research paper that the entire world can now see coming from the US.
Or if you value community and realize all the folks with ambition leaving an area is sad for that community. I don’t have to be cheering for my hometown to win to think it’s sad someone must choose between the community they grew up in and using their talents.
Frankly, my home country doesn't deserve my brain, nor the brain of anyone else willing and able to leave it.
It's a nice sentiment, but you also can't ignore that, if people like myself are willing to go through the oftentimes extremely stressful task of emigrating with all the things that entails, there's probably a reason for it. It's not like you can just pick up and leave, after all
None of my family has been back in decades, we've long since abandoned it.
Also, that situation is a lot more likely to occur in the mother country than most people's host countries, if it doesn't happen already. There's a reason it was the East germans fleeing, and not the other way around.
> And I find it so tragic. It means that the best elements of a given country are being sucked out of it. How can this country ever get better if the best elements just leave it ?
They don't leave irreversibly, they can go back if the political and institutional milieu in their home country improves, and bring valuable insights from abroad. This dynamic has been quite common wrt. those who migrated to the Americas throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
I tend to believe you, but it's not something that's about a lot. I would be curious to know the facts of expats coming back after a while, or a least investing in their home countries
> How can this country ever get better if the best elements just leave it ?
By competing for their talent. I'm not a huge proponent of capitalism, but that's the world we live in and the world we'll die in. These countries simply aren't competitive in a way to encourage their people to stay. There are innumerous ways to combat this. But our current thinking is so clouded by short sighted profit that today's outcomes shouldn't surprise anyone.
So in the end, what's the key takeaway regarding global economics ? If (some of) the most well-paid people cannot guess the market, then doesn't it mean that they are useless ? Then why are we paying their services ?
