Drinking untreated water also only has the _potential_ to cause disease. Playing Russian roulette with a loaded revolver only has the _potential_ to cause death.
Luckily, science can quantify those potentials and determine when the reward outweighs the risks.
If we, as a country, decided to let people who drank unpasteurized milk or untreated water to die without burdening the medical system, it would truly be their own choice. Once a society decides it will care for those people at a cost to the general public, it becomes necessary to protect the public from the burden of their ignorance.
Honestly the overburden to the health system sounds like lame excuse. We don't have an overburden there because of the massive consumption of raw milk. Try to buy some legally and you'll get the picture of how hard it is to find and how expensive it is. I'll happily wave any rights to be emergency treated for any reason (traffic accidents included) if you grant me the right to live in peace and buy the milk and meat from sources I like because that's what this freedom is worth to me.
Anyone that I know that drinks raw milk, raw uncured meats, untreated water hasn't seen a doctor in over a decade.. not terribly scientific but a good indicator that I won't buy pharma-money backed "scientific" studies that show that low-fat, low-sodium and oats-in-cereal-bars are the solution to health issues. I'm all for science and capitalism but they're both not substitutes for common sense.
Saying "Everyone but me is lying to you." to ignorant people who are already suspicious of corporations and science is a simple way to consolidate power.
Once power is consolidated, you can then get paid by any snake oil salesman to say their snake oil is the best.
From the webpage:
"
The Executive Order begins to resolve the current disjointed handling of cryptocurrencies seized through forfeiture by, and scattered across, various Federal agencies.
Currently, no clear policy exists for managing these assets, leading to a lack of accountability and inadequate exploration of options to centralize, secure, or maximize their value.
Taking affirmative steps to centralize ownership, control, and management of these assets within the Federal government will ensure proper oversight, accurate tracking, and a cohesive approach to managing the government’s cryptocurrency holdings.
This move harnesses the power of digital assets for national prosperity, rather than letting them languish in limbo.
"
Well how would you know who to return it to? It's crypto, the genius system which will totally replace money, which doesn't allow you to track simple things like transaction history and remedy fraud like this.
It's not like a cambodian pig butchering operation is going to keep detailed ledgers of who they scammed and for how much.
> ”Well how would you know who to return it to? It's crypto, … which doesn't allow you to track simple things like transaction history”
That’s not actually correct. The blockchain contains a permanent, immutable, and public record of every transaction.
Obviously you also need a way to connect a given wallet ID (address) back to it’s owner, but if transactions originated from regulated platforms like Binance then they will have those records thanks to KYC/AML rules.
If the transaction originated from a private wallet, a fraud victim could simply submit proof of their wallet ID as part of their claim.
Unfortunately no, after the surgery the pigs are full of ketamine, blood thinners, anticoagulants, vasoconstrictors, and other medications required for surgery and euthanasia and are not fit for human consumption.
I wonder if CTO's care that much if their teams have good communication skills. Is it typical that Devs and Engs get communication training on the job. I have not witnessed that.
One underappreciated aspect of AI’s disruption is its potential to replace much of the web as we know it.
Today, people create content primarily to capture attention—and monetize it through ads. This is the engine fueling giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon, who rely heavily on advertising revenue (Meta, for instance, derives 98% of its income from ads). Their entire business model hinges on aggregating user data to target ads more precisely.
But here’s the shift: When LLMs distill content and serve it directly to users, they bypass the original platforms—and their ads. At the same time, LLMs already build detailed user profiles, making ad targeting even more efficient.
This is why Meta is racing to adapt. They recognize that AI could become the primary conduit for ads—and if they don’t control part of that pipeline, their dominance evaporates. The "AI gold rush" isn’t just about superintelligence; it’s about dominating the next generation of advertising.
So the LLM platforms have:
taken the internet, removed the ads from it and are serving it behind their API for a fee and everyone is opting to use it vs the ad ridden internet.
So it's basically "pay a subscription fee per month to use the internet with no ads". And the advertisers get nothing out of that subscription.
"the web as we know it" is about to radically change from being an ad delivery vessel to being another ad delivery vessel that's slightly more intrusive
We have a number of "living documents" that are the specification for the project I'm currently working on. It's terrible. There's no easy way to know that changes have been made or what they are. Sure, there's red-lining and history. But it requires me to visually scan the document for changes every day, sometimes ever hour.
Sure emailing a copy isn't ideal, but it does have the advantage of saying "Here is a set of ideas that I've decided is complete" As opposed to "Watch my stream of consciousness and decide whether it's done or in mid-edit and act on it."
> Sure emailing a copy isn't ideal, but it does have the advantage of saying "Here is a set of ideas that I've decided is complete" As opposed to "Watch my stream of consciousness and decide whether it's done or in mid-edit and act on it."
I agree with your concept but I wish more people treated email like rather than as a stream of consciousness or a series of one-line exchanges that would be better off as chats (in some situations, anyways)
The graph shows the price for 3100 kWh. I'm not sure if that is a very low annual amount or a very very high monthly amount.
The average US household uses 10,000 kWh annually ~833 kWh per month. So I'm guessing most Americans reading the article and looking at the interactive graph are thinking either: this is very cheap or very expensive, depending on whether they are assuming it's monthly or annual.
In the US the average price for 3100 kWh in California would be $1062 which is among the highest in the continental US. So right in line with GB.
In New York it would be $710. Florida it would be $454.
So it's high, but not as eye-watering as it seemed to me initially.
We mostly don't have AC, we have tiny houses, our heating is gas powered. Lots of showers aren't electric either. We don't use huge amounts compared to the US
Unfortunately not. Most houses in the UK are heated using a 'central heating' loop. A closed loop of water that circulated through pipes run through the house and through large radiators in each room. A central boiler, usually a gas boiler, burns gas to heat and circulate this loop to provide whole-house heating, while also typically using a heat exchanger to heat the intake cold drinking water supply into a whole house hot drinking water. (Thus, most houses have cold, hot, and central heating piping).
If you switch out the gas boiler for a heat pump, it can still heat the hot water and heat the central heating loop. But it can't provide cooling that way. There is no infrastructure in most houses to run AC ducting or refrigerant pipes.
You might think that you could simply cool the water in the central heating loop, and therefore make all of the radiators very cold, and use that to move heat out of rooms. In theory that might work, but in most houses these central heating pipes are not insulated and run under floorboards. If you make them cold then they'll cause condensation, leading to water in all kinds of small spaces, and likely leading to warping, damage, or mould.
In the UK, retrofitting AC into an existing house is a huge undertaking in most cases.
Good point. Not to mention the circulation will be all wrong had the radiator been cool instead of warm. (The primary means of heating by radiator actually comes from convection rather than radiation.)
That's the annual figure. But just for electricity. Most UK homes are heated with gas, and many have gas stoves, so the average kWh annual gas figure is much higher (~12,000kWh).
3100 kWh is the figure set by the regulator as the representative annual usage used to calculate prices for e.g. tariff comparison between suppliers. It makes sense to use it here.
Median income and take home pay should be brought into account though. California has one of the highest even by US standards so a $1000 bill for the median Californian family feels much less expensive than for the median Manchester family.
I agree, the mode is probably better. Anyway from the median you can also get a good guess of how much income the band sitting between 25%-75% has since it's a normal distribution. Either comparison should be ok for a guesstimate of the impact of electricity bills for a family in California vs different parts of the UK.
There is clearly a difference between states that invested in projects that went over budget. Power generation is cheaper in a lot of states due to the price of natural gas is dramatically lower than it was 20 years ago. Florida uses gas for 75% of electricity.
We're at ~3.6 MWh in a ground floor apartment with 2 adults, with water heating (e.g. showering) electric but building heating on gas (though we use a space heater a lot as well, probably to the tune of 0.2 MWh/year)
I wonder if I should feel bad since I'm currently at 2830 kWh in 2024 for a single household with all heating costs not coming out of my electric bill.
Hard to say since usage doesn't simply divide by 2: the fridge needs to run regardless of how much food there is (it matters, but not linearly), or if you watch a TV every evening with 2 persons or 1 doesn't show up on the bill either. Probably best to ask friends and see how they get their costs down or if, conversely, you can give them tips
If this article seems super weird to you it's possible that's because you are naturally adept at socializing. For many neuro-atypical folks, remedial socialization requires tons of cognitive focus. It's why some people find social activities exhausting.
> that's because you are naturally adept at socializing
People can be bad at socializing for a number of reasons. if you're depressed it can feel like just thinking that everyone hates you and never reaching out
At least for me it gets easier when you don't think, but this guy is giving the opposite advice
I'm sure this advice might be useful to some people but it's probably the opposite of useful for many others
Luckily, science can quantify those potentials and determine when the reward outweighs the risks.
If we, as a country, decided to let people who drank unpasteurized milk or untreated water to die without burdening the medical system, it would truly be their own choice. Once a society decides it will care for those people at a cost to the general public, it becomes necessary to protect the public from the burden of their ignorance.