Nah, it was already destroyed at the 80s during the Iran war.
The GP's comment is a well repeated piece of propaganda, but it was never true.
We have freedom of navigation because every country everywhere wants it. Change that situation and the freedom goes away, the US's position is irrelevant.
That was pretty much the point on the mission. Because all of the Apollo missions that went to the moon had a much closer orbit than what Artemis did. That restricted their view of the moon to a much more narrow slice. Artemis was able to see the full disc to provide more coverage.
Some of these images from the lunar observations gives me a weird perspective where the moon is really small and the features are like rain drops in really soft sand. Not sure if it's because my brain "knows" the size of the earth, and is seeing the moon as super close and forcing the perspective??? This one in particular: https://artemistimeline.com/#a-setting-earth
There's also no distance haze effect; there's a single point source of light and no atmospheric scattering illuminating the shadows. Plus it's basically a single uniform gray texture with no variation other than the height.
It's like a video game with ALL the advanced techniques we use to make things look 'real' turned off, because most of those things are atmospheric effects, and this landscape lacks one.
Unrelated but happened today and found funny, my dad was telling me how my brother somewhere got this miniature 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola. It was like a couple inches in size. It was sold as a joke product to put beside fish you caught to make them appear bigger in photos.
The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is.
I'd be on board if for every data center a farm gave up the amount of water to use in that data center. Instead of carbon offsets, we'll let them purchase water offsets. Of course that's not a serious answer.
If our water rights system required farmers to actually pay anything approaching market rates for the water they used, it actually would be a serious answer!
Farmers grow alfalfa in the desert and drain the western US's aquifers and rivers because we have insane water rights doctrines that entitle them to trillions and trillions of gallons of free or almost-free water far in excess of what the watershed regions can bear.
If we don't change that system, data center water usage is a rounding error that is barely noticeable at the scale of the problem. If we do change that system, data center water usage isn't a problem at all.
> The farming water usage already exists. The data centers do not. Adding more on top of what farming is using is not going to help. We can prevent the data centers, so that's where the push back is.
Well, to me, this sounds basically like "Jeff Bezos already exists, this school does not. Increasing the government budget to build a school here is not going to help our finance, so that's where we will push back."
(I don't think Jeff Bezos should lose all his money, but he could definitely pay more tax.)
Private jets already exists. Your new EV still doesn't. Adding more emissions on top of what private jets are using is not going to help. We can prevent the new EVs.
Scale matters, and you're completely ignoring it. A single hamburger takes about 2,500 liters of water to produce. The US eats a lot of them and produces a lot of them.
the question does not really seem like a good faith question. if people on this forum can't see a reason why someone would want to use AI to make their life easier is kind of hypocritical. what, it's only good for techbros to use it, but other's can't? we know that pretty much every police agency is understaffed and those working are humans and would like to make their job easier/faster/more successful just like everyone else. unfortunately, they are running into the same thing techbros are in that AI is an oversold bill of goods that can actually cause more work than without it. and i'm saying this that has a very strong skepticism about the status of current policing.
ELIZA was a trivially simple hardcoded chatbot, that mainly reflected your statements back at you as questions, so it's not clear what you mean by that comparison.
If you were looking for an impressive example of early AI, SHRDLU would be it.
Yeah Alaska plates are fairly rare so you could maybe get away with them not adopting the standard. Hawaii plates are EXTREMELY rare because of the cost of freighting a car over and there's no real reason to register a car in Hawaii that I'm aware of. [0]
[0] I'm thinking here of places like Montana which attracts a fair number of out of state registrations to avoid sales and registration taxes in some states. PS don't try this most states already consider this and you're often violating the sales tax laws if the car doesn't leave the state within a few days of purchase.
Wouldn't it be the purview of the cops to update Flock that the plate is no longer of interest and to stop alerting on it? I'm no fan of Flock, but let's put the onus where it is deserved.
Didn't the Evergiven do this years ago showing that blocking one highly trafficked route would cause chaos?
reply