![](https://fedia.io/media/0d/90/0d9097fcd085a5a00c935073e45acc5736f8f471cfdec99dfe7b6d12f3dd3710.png)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
Seemed pretty fair and fact-based to me. What bias are you seeing?
Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
Seemed pretty fair and fact-based to me. What bias are you seeing?
So, are the people saying “Trump is fine…” lying through their teeth? Maybe they should swap him for a different candidate, like Biden?
Yes, that would also be statistical correlations to an AI model. The specific kind of information they’re being trained on doesn’t affect the underlying mechanism of model training.
That’s not what they’re arguing, not even close.
Nah, a lich is a wizard who returns to life by binding his soul to a phylactery. Jesus was a cleric, so he came back as a mummy lord.
Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it’s injected into deep geological structures it doesn’t stay underground.
Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.
No, by this logic one just needs to take into account how long is required before you consider something “sequestration.” Ocean sediment, for example, stays down there for hundreds of millions of years before subduction and vulcanism might bring the carbon back up. So it’s not permanent but it’s certainly permanent enough.
Trees last for a couple of decades. And once a forest is established they turn over continuously, so the forest as a whole emits as much carbon as it takes in. As we see here with the boreal forests in the article, the carbon comes back out into the atmosphere quite easily. I personally wouldn’t consider it a very good “sequestration” method.
If you really want to use trees for carbon sequestration, a good approach might be setting up big tree farms and then sinking the harvested wood into anoxic lakes. That’d take the carbon out of circulation for a long enough time that future generations can figure out what to do with it afterward.
Forests in general shouldn’t be seen as a way to “sequester” carbon, trees are just temporary storage for it. They’re nice to have, of course, and serve many benefits. But not that one.
And unfortunately, this article is also just a response to media clickbait, not a discussion point it tries to look like
And becomes new clickbait in the process.
Yeah, it was totally Biden that took down the regulatory state. Democrats are well known for their opposition to regulation.
You’re blaming Joe Biden for Cloudstrike? You are ridiculous.
Russia ran out of tires to throw into it, I guess.
Looking forward to the “Waymo robotaxis become silent killers stalking the night” headlines once the fix is implemented.
A surprise, to be sure. But a welcome one.
I run tabletop roleplaying adventures and LLMs have proven to be great “brainstorming buddies” when planning them out. I bounce ideas back and forth, flesh them out collaboratively, and have the LLM speak “in character” to give me ideas for what the NPCs would do.
They’re not quite up to running the adventure themselves yet, but it’s an awesome support tool.
Russia kidnapped a ton of Ukrainian children and distributed them throughout Russia. So Ukraine needs to occupy that territory to protect the Ukrainians living there, clearly.
It’s impossible to run an AI company “ethically” because “ethics” are such a wibbly-wobbly and subjective thing, and because there are people who simply wish to use it as a weapon on one side of a debate or the other. I’ve seen goalposts shift around quite a lot in arguments over “ethical” AI.
Some people are so addicted to anger that they’ll shoot themselves in the foot just so they’ll have something to complain about.
“The gimp” is a character from Pulp Fiction. You’re imagining things and refusing to use a powerful tool in response to that imagined slight.