james1
The strongest centre left candidates at the moment are the Greens. As far as electoralism goes, it would be better to stand behind a party that actually has a membership than split further into parties which frankly look the same as countless other "like the left flank of Labour but better" parties.
At least something like the Northern Independence Party could raise the priority of the North. I'm not sure what this offers that, say, the Breakthrough Party doesn't apart from further vote splitting.
Feels like it will offer a similar level of political success and distinction as when you are trying to look up CPB vs CPB-ML vs CPGB-ML vs NCP vs RCPB-ML vs... except with everyone having platitudinal tech marketing guru's branding like Transform, Change, Breakthrough etc.
Sticking to rock/punk/metal adjacent genres, the best I've been to so far this year was Show Me the Body, although Tinariwen were also very good, and my most anticipated for the rest of the year is Lingua Ignota supported by Ashenspire and Ken Mode (amazing combination!)
Reading & Writing
Video Games
Comics
Board Games / Table top games
The Professor Elemental Justice League looking one is funny and the Elijah Nang is hella comfy looking, but my favourite here is the Scartoon cover. The art style looked familiar but I don't know David Mancini (https://www.instagram.com/dart_works/) it just has that slightly like Michael DeForge style energy.
Here are a few more, although I only know the Larry June one as a record
I don't know that that's true, there can be other cultural reasons.
In Hindu-based cultures you wouldn't eat cow, as in largely Muslim ones you wouldn't eat pork.
Eating horse is common in a lot of countries despite falling into your "useful enough not to kill" category. Sheep are useful for wool production but people still eat lamb.
Rat is easy to domesticate and they are frankly useless at drawing a plough but eating them is still taboo in many places. A couple of billion people eat insects daily, but there are still many other countries where it is very rare to eat them at all despite the ease of farming.
It's a machine learning chat bot, not a calculator, and especially not "AI."
Its primary focus is trying to look like something a human might say. It isn't trying to actually learn maths at all. This is like complaining that your satnav has no grasp of the cinematic impact of Alfred Hitchcock.
It doesn't need to understand the question, or give an accurate answer, it just needs to say a sentence that sounds like a human might say it.
The impacts of the environmental damage are not necessarily worse than the environmental damage from not sinking superyachts in the long term, if it becomes a common enough threat that rich people no longer feel secure in owning them.
The concern with anything too destructive is with the property and safety of workers on board imo, not the ships themselves.
I'd recommend Andreas Malm's book How to Blow Up a Pipeline if you want to hear more about the reasoning for this sort of thing.
Scientists can just make stuff up, but in this case Paul's complaint appears to be more to do with the article than any underlying research as he is trying to draw information that the article doesn't pretend to intend to provide.
A lot of the problems with publicly visible scientific research are to do with media communication and the way that journalists will interpret or spice up results in their coverage.
There are also problems with the incentive to publish surprising results more than confirmation of existing information, as well as with the incentives for research funding, and scientists can bring their own biases into research consciously or unconsciously.
For things like company sponsored research, it is not uncommon for multiple trials to be run and only the ones with positive results to be published. I'd recommend Ben Goldacre's pop sci industry journalism books Bad Science or the even better sequel Bad Pharma for more discussion of this.
Then there are journals which function more like vanity press, with insufficient peer review processes and that just charge people to publish their papers.
But there are also scientists who just wholesale make things up, whether for obvious financial gain like Andrew Wakefield making up the autism from vaccines MMR scare because he had competing vaccines he wanted to sell, or just for easy prestige like Jonathan Pruitt just copy and pasting underlying data samples to boost trends.
It is not unthinkable for researchers to invent information, although my gut will always be to trust the researchers not the international megacorporation with an obvious financial incentive and the idea of suing researchers like this without substantial proof of fraud could have devastating effects on scientific research should J&J manage to push it through.
Have you read any Robert Rankin? His Brentford trilogy might be your cup of tea too.
A reasonable amount of it will be gone. If there is not adequate warning and people willing to spend time and server space on preservation then a lot will disappear when the companies who own the IP or host the content go under/move to other focuses.
It's not like there will necessarily be wholesale losses like when the BBC were taping over all the old Dr Who episodes, or even more modern examples like the time Myspace lost all music hosted on their site, but I would expect a reasonable proportion to be at least widely inaccessible.