The fuel consumption feels like the bigger problem since contrails last for hours vs co2 that lasts damn near forever.

They are roughly equal problems at the moment.

> Recent estimates show that contrails cause about the same amount of warming each year as all the CO₂ emitted by all flights from 1940 to 2018.

If we're measuring in terms of difficulty, CO2 is a much bigger problem than contrails.

Yes, contrails appears to be mostly solvable at a small cost in time and fuel and people have started to take action on that.

For most flights today though, if you only count the CO2 produced you're understanding the climate damage by about half.

It's one way to look at it I guess. CO2 is still the half of the damage that's way harder to fix.

Which is why work on fixing contrails is so important, it’d be insane to leave 50% improvement at a tiny cost unresolved whilst clawing back small percentage efficiency gains in co2 release from incremental and hideously expensive engine improvements.

We need to do both of course, but contrails should’ve been resolved the moment they were identified as so significant, it’s frustrating how slowly the industry responds to such an enormous opportunity (“we halved our climate impact last year” would be easy marketing)

As long as win there doesn't get used as an excuse to procrastinate on reducing co2. If you asked me I would favor a ban on all non-emergency flying which solves both problems.

Malnutrition after 3 weeks? I mean, pack 21 multivitamins.

I had ridges in my nails after an exceptionally bad bout of flu. It's not obscure or complex.

She’ll probably do that on her next 3 week trip.

How is malnutrition ever good?

"Mal", bad, in the latin

Sure, losing weight is of benefit. But malnutrition is defined as a "serious deficiency" in the intake of energy and nutrients. Healthy weight loss is not malnutrition, and you can quite definitely be missing essential vitamins and be malnourished without losing weight.

Heck, some of the worst western diets are both poor in vitamins/minerals and also still rich in calories.

Not just americans. With very few exclusions, we are all overweight, even people who do look great. The food we consuming is mostly crap.

So it's a benefit almost for everyone.

There was no malicious intent though, your analogy implies there was. And no real harm done apart from billable hours from the RubyGems guys.

You don't need intent to be fined or jailed for criminal negligence. Let anthrax or smallpox escape your lab, and kill and maim people and see how your "no malice" defense holds up.

Sure but nobody died, which makes it a bad analogy. If anything, some good came from it, since now RubyGems has hardened their setup.

I'm curious what signals they're trading on. SEC filings? Candlestick voodoo numerology?

This is false, however this is not seem like a case where trademark is being infringed. If someone else opens a store called Ikea they obviously have to shut it down.

If their agents take over the world, then they don't need to worry about going public. Dividends for the current share holders!

You need to rinse rice though, a lot of people don't realize that.

You do that to get the starch out and get a better result don't you? That's what I rinse my rise for at least

You don't "need" to. It just achieved a culinary effect

both a culinary choice (do I want sticky or non-sticky rice) and rinsing off contaminants (who knows who/what urinated on it even if only microscopic amounts are left, seriously)

The culinary effect of not serving dirty food.

This article is RubyGems pointing fingers at OpenAI, not OpenAI taking responsibility for anything. We don't know what really happened from what I can tell.

> from what I can tell.

The authors are not RubyGems. The website says it's based on data served up by RubyGems. They point at OpenAI with arguments.

Did you try very hard "telling"?

Parts of it can be a bubble while other parts are not. The need for datacenters can be real while the valuation of model providers can be a fantasy.

If the need is driven by a bubble economy, when the bubble pops the demand disappears too. This can even lead to a separate bubble popping (see: the dotcom and telecom bubbles).

Yes, datacentres can be reused for other purposes but dark fibre didn't save the telecom bubble and the utility of train tracks didn't save the railway bubble.

I never found any of those things surprising. Of course rich men are getting away with those things. Of course he killed himself when he finally got caught.

If someone believed he committed even a portion of the crimes attributed to him and his associates, it follows that someone would have to believe he had firsthand knowledge. There's no reason to believe he would kill himself while still retaining that leverage.

Even with leverage he's still a pervert and the whole world knows about it. That's a pretty solid reason to kill yourself.