Mordisquitos

Also AI industry: "Please make sure your website is adapted so that AI agents are able to use it."

In the linked article Lorent does not specify when exactly he interviewed Edith Carrow Roosevelt, but I think it is fair to assume that the reference to "in the 1950s" is an assumption made by the author of the blog based on when the article was published, and does not cast any doubt on the timeline.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20060507100625/http://www.americ...

Those Are Not Slogans That Are Applicable Followed Literally.

[0] https://andonlabs.com/blog/evolution-of-bengt

> Every airline has a 3-digit IATA numeric code. 098 = Air India. British Airways is 125. IndiGo is 526. These codes predate the familiar 2-letter IATA codes (AI, BA, 6E): they were used when teletypes could not reliably transmit letters and numbers interchangeably.

We’re doing this because we believe this future is coming regardless, and we’d rather be the ones running the Torment Nexus.”

However, I suspect that is not the case. AWS is agnostic as to the type of data stored on S3, and deletion of PII stored on S3 is the sole responsibility of the AWS customer that chooses to store it.

I often receive emails from (among other things) fashion brands to which I never subscribed. There are clearly multiple people worldwide who, mistakenly or intentionally, are giving my `firstname.lastname@gmail.com` at checkout or whatever rather than their own.

Every time I receive one of those emails I do two things:

1. Use their unsubscribe link on a private window, connecting with a VPN exit point in their country (or nearby). If asked, I select the "I never subscribed" or "This is spam" option.

2. Mark the email as spam on GMail, rejecting GMail's proposal to unsubscribe instead (as I already did).

I have no mercy and feel no guilt at reducing their email server's reputation. The only exceptions I make are the rare emails that ask me to confirm "my" subscription before sending "me" their stuff. That I respect, and I just ignore and delete.

But if we're open to applying a quantitative timescale threshold to the thought experiment, at which we can argue geothermal is renewable, that raises the question for nuclear. If we could access all fissile uranium and thorium on Earth, how long would it take for us to deplete its stored energy? Does that mean nuclear energy is renewable?

Geothermal hotspots do not reheat by fission or otherwise at the same speed that we extract their energy (if they did we'd be in trouble if we weren't extracting it!).

As I mentioned in another comment, build a Dyson sphere of solar panels around the Sun and it will last just as long. Build an all-Earth geothermal plant and the heat will be depleted.

That is not the case for geothermal. It could in theory be cooled down if exploited at a massive scale.

Saying geothermal is not renewable is not an indictment nor a criticism. Geothermal is great and we should use it more. It's just technically not renewable, but that doesn't matter.

However, given that there's no downsides to cooling down a hotspot other than, well, no longer being able to extract energy from it, geothermal is a bit of an honorary "renewable".

Actual renewables ultimately all come down to recent[0] solar energy, which will never deplete their source however much they are used. All the energy in wind, hydroelectric and biofuels has recently originated in the Sun.

[0] I say "recently" because fossil fuels are all also derived from the Sun, but their rate of regeneration is a bit too slow compared to the speed at which we use them.

Not to downplay the positive steps that are being taken towards using renewable energy worldwide, but one must point out that all those countries except one are almost exclusively using hydroelectric power, whose availability at such scale is a geographical lottery. As for Iceland, which also relies mostly on hydroelectric power but not in such great a proportion, it makes up for it thanks to easy and abundantly available geothermal power (which, though environmentally friendly, is arguably not technically renewable).

If you ever find out you have been drinking methanol by all means do drink safe spirits if you have immediate access to them (after throwing up what you can if you're still in time), but get medical help now. Ethanol will not cure you from methanol poisoning, it will only help reduce and delay the damage somewhat while you're waiting for an ambulance or making your way to a hospital to get proper treatment.

   SELECT
      id,
      full_name,
      IFNULL(age_verified, acc_created < DATETIME_SUB(CURRENT_DATETIME(), INTERVAL 18 YEAR) AS age_verified,
   FROM 
      google_accounts

It should be trivial for Google and Reddit to grandfather-in accounts which are more than 18 years old (arguably less, who created their account when they were, e.g. 5 years old?). However, I'm betting they will come up with all sorts of rationalisations as to why this is not possible, anything from the bullshit ("not technically feasible" my ass) or the self-contradictory ("an account may have changed owner"... so in violation of the ToS? And what's to stop an account from changing ownership after age verification?).

I admit I am prematurely riling myself up with indignation for something which may never happen. Maybe I am wrong and Google, Reddit, etc. take the common sense approach, but I have no hope in it.