This is empirically false; the rates of chronic physical and mental illnesses nowadays are are far higher than e.g. 50 years ago, and these are serious illnesses, not the kind of thing that could have been just not noticed.
The data is very clear that the rate of mental illnesses is increasing. Rates of severe mental illnesses like Schizophrenia are also increasing.
NONE of the current theories being experimented with on patients have a concrete, proven scientific basis with some such as the decades-long SSRI scam have actively harmed patients and created physical dependence/addiction and actively causing harm to patients and their families (eg, SSRI-induced suicides).
I trust science, but I don't trust scientists any more than I trust any other human with their money, career, and reputation on the line. I trust the FDA and pharmaceutical company ethics even less (eg, Bayer knowingly selling HIV-infested drugs to hemophiliacs, saying Oxycotin is non-addictive, or the revolving door that allows non-working SSRIs to be released and marketed as working despite all evidence to the contrary).
>Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find.
The average medical professional is worst-placed to judge the veracity of any studies they find than the average engineer or mathematician who's done a solid statistics and probability course. Medical students are assessed on their ability to memorise and regurgitate facts, not on their ability to conduct statistical analysis.
Dubai is paying ~$2,450 per acre-foot of desalinated water. You generally need around 2 acre feet of water per acre of farmland assuming near zero rain, it varies by crop type but goes up with temperature and down with humidity.
Farms growing food crops don’t produce ~5,000$ in profits per acre, even 1/10th that is an extreme outlier. On top of this desalinated water still has significantly more salt than rainwater which eventually causes issues. Subsides can always make things look cheaper when you ignore the subsidy.
Is that just because imported Dubai food is insanely expensive? I don't believe the math on anything but maybe indoor farming here is going to work out if the water costs anything at all.
Indoor farming can be extremely water-efficient, often at the cost of energy inefficiency, but with low solar prices and the level of sun they have in the Southwest perhaps that can become economical?
I don't know, I just do know that water shortages are a problem, are going to continue to become more of a problem, and there's currently just one technology that's affordable enough that some nations currently use it at scale. So let's get started.
> Now they have a lot of money so not having money to pay for developers is not an excuse.
NVidia is the exception to the rule when it comes to hardware companies paying competitive salaries for software engineers. I imagine AMD is still permeated by the attitude that software "isn't real work" and doesn't deserve more compensation, and that kind of inertia is very hard to overcome.
My man, your world view is twisted by dogma. You may not personally like how she runs AMD, but Lisa Su is eminently qualified for the job. Her gender has nothing to do with this. You need to check yourself.
At the CEO level there is no "qualified for the job". It's not like you can get a PhD in being a successful CEO. There is only actual success.
And it's not me twisted by dogma. I'm just predicting what would happen. Do you seriously argue Su could be chucked out (very likely replaced by a man) without a giant screaming fest from the usual suspects? No way. It's the NYTA journos who'd go on the warpath and be twisted by dogma.
You’re bringing a lot of emotion to this but not much information or a compelling argument. Perhaps you shouldn’t be leveling accusations of “screaming fest”.
Also, the NYT recently ran a piece asking whether women ruined the workplace. It’s unclear why you think they would “go on the warpath” over a CEO being pushed out for business reasons.
Yeah and look at the response to that article ... NYT readers couldn't believe it had been published at all. But you know what I mean.
You are perceiving emotion where there isn't any, just analysis. Maybe it makes it easier for you to dismiss the point. I don't have a position in AMD and don't care what happens to them. It's just obvious what would happen and why they'd be reluctant to swap out their CEO.
That "bad leadership" dug AMD out of hole and transformed the company into a behemoth. From under $2 a share to around $250 in eight years. I'll invest in that kind of bad leadership all day everyday.
You should compare AMD vs its peers, not its even worse prior state.
AMD should by all rights be a strong competitor to NVIDIA with a big chunk of the AI market. They have nearly nothing. The buck should stop at the top, but with AMD it doesn't.
This uses to be impressive, then you look at the gains that Bitcoin investors have and this is quite paltry, especially when you consider that inflation is 8-10%, per year.
>sometimes we favor safety, standard of living or social safety nets above short term profit.
Did you read the whole article? The current European standard of living is built on debt and unsustainable without an increased rate of growth (to outgrow the debt). And it potentially poses an existential threat, because if Europe's GDP and industrial capacity relative to its neighbours continues to fall, it faces the risk of invasion by e.g. Russia.
You want increased growth? Governments currently are forced to limit their spending to 103% of their budget. This will, essentially by definition, being (much) less than inflation, reduce money in circulation.
Increase that to, oh, say 105%, and it'll turn around fast. And debt, which is more or less the single leftover untaxed source of income for the EU's rich, will lose value far faster. This will then immediately make it much harder for the EU's countries to lend, which will therefore immediately achieve exactly what conservatives claim they want.
Economics has a simple answer: public pensions are a classic tragedy of the commons. If the pension system didn't exist, then people would be incentivised to have more children to support them in old age, instead of a free rider problem where everyone relies on everyone else having children.
>I don't get why you would say that. it's just auto-completing. It cannot reason. It won't solve an original problem for which it has no prior context to "complete" an approximated solution with. you can give it more context and more data,but you're just helping it complete better. it does not derive an original state machine or algorithm to solve problems for which there are no obvious solutions. it instead approximates a guess (hallucination).
I bet you can't give an example such written problem that a human can easily solve but no LLM can.
>And Plato had no grounding in biology, and so his work here was quite interesting but also quite wrong.
Defining what a word should mean doesn't require any understanding of biology unless you make the assumption that it's a biology-related word. Why should the definition of "thinking" have any reference to biology? If you assume it does, then you're basically baking in the assumption that machines can't think.
Because until recently (I'm talking last 150-40 years here depending on how we want to define thinking) the only things that could think were various animals. And so 100% of their systems for thinking were rooted in biology. If an LLM can think (and I'm partial to thinking that it can) it's going to different in a number of ways from how a person would think. They may be some overlap, but there will be all these human / biology / evolutionary psychology things which are really person-specific. Even just basic stuff such as seeing faces in the clouds, or falling prey to appeals of emotion. (ie, because our thinking is wrapped up in other processes such as status / ego / survival / etc.) Thinking has only been biological for a long, long time. Non-biological thinking is pretty new, even if you extend it back to the early days of computing.
reply