Did you stop reading the article at the first data center?
"More improper redaction shows that the data center using the most water annually is Fireball Group LLC, the Google Data Center in Papillion. Fireball LLC reports _547.88 megagallons_ for their 2025 Annual Water Consumption." (emphasis mine)
Do you recall reading many articles about the water usage calamity 70,000 new houses constitute?
The comparand here isn't "all the houses in Austin". It's "the number of houses Austin has added in the last 2 years alone". And it's vastly larger than the data center usage number we're discussing.
The strongest evidence we have of the reversibility of epigenetic aging, as well as its limitations -- are embryos which undergo an epigenetic reset.
After fertilisation, the embryo strips the father's DNA of its age-linked chemical tags and swaps its packaging, destroys his mitochondria, rebuilds telomeres, and clears damaged proteins, though it can't undo the DNA mutations sperm gather as men age.
(those that result in an non viable embryo result in miscarriage.)
Embryogenesis is an early fail-fast process. The vast majority of mutations and instabilities are caught through developmental checkpoints. Every living human passed a ruthless selection process in the womb.
So part of the magic of that aging reversal is simply abandoning what doesn't stick.
You can't do that to a grown human, obviously.
Yes, that's my point. Although, I wouldn't say "less room for error", but rather less room for handling error.
Early embryogenesis seems to activate weird genetic pathways, whose function scientists suspect evolved for the sake of complexity alone, to be a genetic integrity stress test.
Mind you, mutation in sexual reproduction isn't at all just accidental "bit flips". The cross-over stage in meiosis always recombines the chromosomal information randomly (to increase environmental adaptability, off-setting the slow rate of sexual reproduction). There is no concept of a "gene" there, the cuts can happen in the middle of anything important, too. This intentional instability needs to be accounted for, biologically.
Before anyone even detects pregnancy, a lot of non-viable genetics have been aborted by the body. As tragic as they are for the becoming parents, miscarriages are a good thing, not misfortune. It's exactly this fail-fast selection process weeding out failed random recombination attempts, which likely would have caused severe functional problems later anyway.
The body isn't a lump of omnipotent cells, but a complex system of functionally primed cells. You cannot do a selective genetic stress test on a developed organism like that. Without radical selection, the rejuvenation process wouldn't be safe, rather a guarantee for cancer and metabolic dysfunction. At any point in time, there are malignant cells somewhere in the body, which are constantly snatched by the immune system. In fact, "rejuvenation"/immortality is a hallmark of cancerous transformation. And let's not forget, embryonic development isn't fully self-governed. The mother's body also checks the embryo's signaling and may abort anything funky. A developed organism doesn't have this external oversight. Auto-immunity and genetic checkpoints is all there is and those mechanisms can become malignant, too.
Did you know, with age, men's somatic cells increasing lack the whole Y-chromosome? It's not at all mission critical and just got lost at some point during mitosis, no biggie, but I think it shows the extent of accumulated genetic disarray in somatic cells.
If you cracked this and gave everybody another ~50 years, that's probably enough time to crack cancer across the board. But not everybody is going to want those extra years. And I'd only want them if they were healthy active years.
Given the fact the large majority of embryos die early after conception, I would call it quite ruthless. And of course, there is intense gamete selection beforehand too.
You can at the cellular level. There's a hypothesis that low levels of caloric restriction or oxidative stress are essential, because they weed out underperforming cells, which are replaced.
This is not at all comparable to the extent of embryonic rejuvenation. Lol.
Caloric restriction etc. just aids cellular housekeeping. The processes in maintaining gametic immortality are much more radical and transformative. Somatic and gametic genetics are governed completely differently.
which, IIRC, discussed the notion of an semi-autonomous population of mitochondria in long lived tissues (like muscle) which could be curated over ones lifetime by high intensity exercise stress. Future mitochondria in these long-lived tissues would then not be descended from the poorer performing members who were weeded out through apoptosis.
All of it is a matter of active research, as this relates to the evolution of sex/sexual reproduction, which, contrary to popular belief, is still an unsolved problem in biology. Classical evolutionary theory cannot explain sexual evolution. Any book about "why?" will either be highly opinionated, agenda-driven, out-dated, or simplistic (as are my comments here).
I am not a biologist, so I can not refer to or evaluate any meaningful recent papers on the matter. However, I can recommend the podcast 'Big Biology', which dives into current biology research, theory and philosophy, including sexual evolution.
Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' is also an excellent read/audiobook. His specific theories of the evolutionary "unit" have been disproven, but his argumentation teaches a lot about "evolutionary thinking". I really wish he stuck with biology and science education instead of becoming this reactionary giga twat.
Sexual reproduction can remove bad mutations. Imagine two parents. One has bad mutations m1. Other has bad mutation m2. They have three children. The first gets only m2. The second gets both and dies. The third inherits neither.
Even though neither parent was fully healthy, one of the children was. Asexual reproduction cannot do this.
No, of course not. But having diploid, paternal and maternal DNA is something you need sexual reproduction for.
Apart from that, it's also wrong because sexual reproduction did not get rid of anything. Just one offspring not affected, but the premise already established the fitness of partial carriers, so that mutation is gonna remain in the gene pool.
Let me rephrase to be more neutral. Imagine two genetic lines. Both lines have one bad mutation. Survivable, but makes the individual less fit. With asexual reproduction evolution has to pick one or the other. With sexual it can get rid of both.
You are not really thinking this through. How would a fitness reducing mutation become a feature of a genetic line in the first place in asexual reproduction? The "silent" partial carrier dynamic of genetic defects is a problem exclusive to sexually reproducing organisms.
How can sexual reproduction "get rid of them"?
Play it out for a few generations, you will see, there is a frequency equilibrium. We've done this in school with paper, but if you know some programming, it's an easy exercise. Anyway, unless being very detrimental for partial carriers, the bad allele is gonna stay in the gene pool.
Imagine a flax bush with a mutation that causes smaller leaves and a separate one that makes it live longer. Remember, mutations are completely random. In asexual reproduction it's probably going to be about as prevalent as the wild type (the default without these mutations). In sexual reproduction the repeated shuffling of genes will eventually (quite quickly in this case) produce one with the longer life but without the smaller leaves.
Sorry, it's not my main interest right now, so I am out-of-the-loop.
Last time I checked, Big Biology was kinda unique going beyond basic popsci, while still remaining interesting and engaging. I think biologists are not the most technically inclined, not really drawn to podcasting. And it's also not the hottest of topics right now, specific research PR and educational voices aren't funded well. There are some journal/university etc. associated everybody-has-a-podcast-now podcasts, but I found them to be rather boring and dry. Individual episodes of the Huberman/Lex Fridman type edgelord podcasts may also be occasionally interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is poor, with a heavy bias towards overconfident and narcissistic guests speaking with false authority, lots of explanatory speculation presented as facts, pronounced political confirmation bias.
Maybe take a well presented episode on Big Biology and see where else respective guests speak or publish?
The evolution of sex and sexual reproduction, as opposed to other means of reproduction. It is inherently tied to the difference in genetic maintenance/repair mechanisms between germline and somatic cells. See wiki link above.
Embryos are probably the clearest proof that at least some of what we call biological aging is reversible rather than simply accumulated irreversible damage
> Conduct monetary policy by influencing market interest rates to achieve the goals of [...] an inflation rate of 2 percent per year on average [...]
The idea is to discourage people/companies to store a truckload of cash like Scrooge McDuck. So it's better to invest it or put it in a bank where the bank will not store it but lean it so it's invested. The end result is to encourage the money to flow, as suggested in the article.
I levelled up my Claude Code workflow by giving it the ability to see its own front-end output — automatic screenshots captured during system/e2e tests, wired into a custom Code command that visually inspects every captured frame.
Two files, a few lines of config, and a meaningfully better feedback loop.
I can't download it, as it appears to be US only. Based on the screenshots, without 'feels like' support throughout the forecast (not just for current conditions) it wouldn't be useful where I live.
In the US, the 100th meridian is a popular demarcation for the half of the country that experiences high humidity versus the other half that experiences low humidity. It is why 100F in Phoenix, Arizona is much more tolerable than 100F in Atlanta, Georgia.
Do any feel-like estimates take cloud cover into consideration? It doesn't seem like it, but in a high altitude desert like NM, it is a huge factor. Furthermore, the magnitude of the effect varies depending on the day of year and time of day (how much atmosphere the sun passes through), so you can't just mentally add 10 degrees or something. And it isn't just based on the immediate conditions - if it has been cloudy all morning it will feel cooler even after the sun comes out then it will if the ground has been baking in the sun all morning. Some of that is accounted for by the air temperature (conductive heating of the air by the ground), but there is also a radiative heating effect as well. I would love an app that tried to incorporate those factors into it's "feels-like" estimate.
> Do any feel-like estimates take cloud cover into consideration?
No, usually not, because they're usually just simple toys combining a heat index and wind chill scale.
There _is_ an official metric used for estimating heat stress that accounts for cloud cover - the Wet-bulb Globe Temperature (e.g. https://www.weather.gov/tsa/wbgt). This is what is used, for instance, in literature analyzing the impact that future climate change might have on heat stress and mortality risk during heat waves. It's also used by some professional sports programs to monitor risk for crowds and athletes, as well as commonly used by OSHA and other regulatory agencies looking at worker exposure to heat hazards.
The "feels like" metric is more closely tied to human stress and safety than raw temperature.
In cold weather (wind chill), wind strips away the thin warm layer of air next to your skin, so you lose heat faster. Hence, "feels colder".
In hot weather (heat index), humidity slows sweat evaporation, so your body can't cool itself as effectively. Hence, "feels hotter".
So it's a lot more useful for decision-making (like what to wear, weather it is safe to run/hike, how much water you need, etc.) than the plain temperature.
Just to add further color: I’m a teacher, and at my school, we use the “feels like” temperature to decide whether to send kids outside for recess. Without that metric, we’d need to either ignore the wind chill, create our own formula, or leave it up to the judgement of the individual teacher running recess that day. Much better to have a number.
In sunny dry US Southwest, whether the sun hits you directly or whether there are clouds in the way makes a huge difference. The "cloudiness" indicator is nowhere near precise enough, but the feels-like temperature readings generally do a decent job.
This is not exclusive to the East, but any culture with a high cost of expression. Recent interview with a Russian CEO, talking about how they have "growth across the board, only in the negative direction"
And I suspect that in general more people (and sub cultures) in the US will start using more non-committal language in the coming decades. When repression grows harder it might become more important to not be noticed.
It would be interesing to know if the regional differences in the US that people are talking about here could be traced back to those places having a more homogeneous population with regards to hierarchical religious practices, country of origin, single-ish way to make a living or similar so that it is very important to not be cast out of the group.
Another perspective is also how this phenomenon relates to what I think is called "code switching" that individual persons from oppressed groups often use in contact with an individual from the oppressing group in daily life. Like how BIPOC interact with white people, women with men or young people with adults - where a not insignificant part of the interaction is about keeping the oppressive party calm and content.
----
English is not my language and I'd like to learn better. Please help me by correcting spelling, expressions and idioms.
Nothing wrong with the attributes the author groups under 'transparent leadership', but the article shows a certain misunderstanding of servant leadership.
At the core of servant leadership is the idea that leaders shouldn't hoard power, but instead share it and empower their reports. That they are accountable to their reports, rather than the other way.
Nothing to do with acting like a parents and becoming a single point of failure.
reply