I think on top of this, the question has an incorrect implicit assumption - that LLMs understand what they produce (this would be necessary for them to produce code in languages other than what they’re trained on).
LLMs don’t product intelligent output. They produce plausible strings of symbols, based on what is common in a given context. That can look intelligent only in so far as the training dataset contains intelligently produced material.
As a climate scientist, yep ☹️
Wow. Her writing is as horrendous as everything else about her…
Women do already approach men. But not ones they aren’t interested in… So it’s kind of hard to interpret your “mandatory” any other way.
Unless what you’re saying is that it should be mandatory that men don’t approach women first, which kind of sounds like you’re making the argument for the thing you’re raging against.
I also disagree with conscription. But even if you think it’s a good idea, you’re equating a national service requirement to mandating women speak to men (presumably many of whom they have no interest in). This is just getting wilder and wilder.
"it should be mandatory for women to "
Is a wild thing to put in absolutely any sentence.
As usual, the nuanced answer that doesn’t oversimplify the complexities is the best one. Good answer.
I bet women 30-40 years ago would have loved to see this answer too. It’s a good thing that the world has changed in this regard.
Yep, very similar to UK Labour, in my understanding. They’ve distanced themselves from their union roots a lot over the last 4ish decades.
Please tell me you understand that you can direct your own preferences?
This is how you should vote:
First preferences get reported, so they are a symbolic message to the politicians. But they might also win in some cases, so bonus. If your early preferences get knocked off early, then your preference will flow to who ever you put higher among the last 2 to be knocked off.
Edit: to be clear, there is no way in any ballot, that putting greens first makes it more likely that the liberals will win, UNLESS YOU MANUALLY VOTE THAT WAY.
Barring the fact that most pollutants aren’t that easy to deal with, I don’t think so. I think you’d suffer from a kind of Jevon’s Paradox of toxicity, where people would just dump more in, until whatever “ok” threshold previously existed would be breached, and you’d be left in the same situation, just systematically worse.
Fair enough, sorry. It’s just that your question (and some of your answers) don’t seem to be accounting for dealing with the volume change of steam, and how that would be managed.
Also the fact that if you’re evaporating the water off anyway, why not just let it escape and concentrate the chemicals, and then deal with them that way? I’d guess most of them would not be in the vapour anyway? (unless they’re volatile, in which case they’d probably boil off even earlier)
Re: Lava contact. I don’t think the resulting water vapour is much more than 100°C? The phase change takes a lot of energy to phase change, and is still at about 100°C after that, and then the steam would escape very quickly, and be displaced by more water, so it would not have much chance to heat up more. The lava-water interface would always be at about 100°C, give or take a few tens of degrees for the Leidenfrost effect, maybe? I might be wrong here, but I can’t see how it would get MUCH hotter than 100°C (assuming normal surface pressure).
sorry, thought I was replying to OP
Or, hear me out, you could have a minority government with multiple parties and independents, many of whom want to see coal phased out.
Right… Have you considered that a basic order-of-magnitude estimate of scale of water, energy, and pressure requirements make the idea wildly infeasible in practice?
You realise we can vote for third parties here, right?
You COULD name names… Perhaps via Tor to a journalist
You could always regulate and ban toxics at the point of production or sale, before they get into the waste stream
You realise water boils at 100°C, right?
Edit: yes, I know it boils a different temperatures, but we’re talking about 500°C for a practical use case at scale here…
Strong doubt that AI would be useful for producing improved compilers. That’s a task that would require extremely detailed understanding of logical edge cases of a given language to machine code translation. By definition, no content exists that can be useful for training in that context. AIs will certainly try to help, because they are people pleasing machines. But I can’t see them being actually useful.