It was good weather for London. Clear skies and cool.

I think Kejelcha will be back.

As a London cyclist I don't really mind the odd taxi / Waymo dropping off in the bike lane. It's an annoyance but I guess they have to drop off somewhere.

Most people die at some stage. I wonder if there's any statistical evidence that this lot is abnormal?

An obvious counter hypothesis is the amyloid is produced to counter an infectious agent. It is a reaction to that, not the cause. I think HSV-1 has been hypothesised. I'm not that up on it, just saying there are alternatives.

Which is only relevant if you actually find an infectious agent doing something in the right place, which so far we have not.

The vaccine prevention connection for example AFAIK is just pure statistics: you get the shingles vaccine, your population level Alzheimer's risk drops but we have no direct evidence of why this should be.

Its entirely possible we later find it has no effect and it's a population level quirk of people who were likely to get a shingles vaccine until that research - conversely the cost of just getting one is incredibly low (hence why I did, in relation to that exact data).

Climate science is much more complicated - there are many things you could disagree with beyond will tons of carbon change things, yes or no.

Like are we doomed or will it just get a bit warmer before we switch to solar for example.

There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists.

> There are also money issues like with the alzheimer's situation. (that is: If climate change is dooming us then we should send more money to climate scientists)

Absolutely, the issues are similar

And if this can upend the business model of some big companies we'll give some "incentives" to some "doubtful" scientists even if their doubts are unfounded (actually very well founded but you get the gist)

Which sucks because such work should be free of pressures and incentives

> we should send more money to climate scientists.

Couldn't disagree more.

Please spend it on those who might actually fix something. There's plenty of can remove carbon or can undo the effect of X on Y. Let's stop falling back on the bad argument of we must leave nature alone right after arguing we change billion dollar industries because we can.

We shouldn't learn to be custodians watching the planet die because of past mistakes, we should be fixing and improving the planet and improving on nature because we can, must and should, shoulder this reaponsibility.

Please not _yet more modelling_ burning HPC into the ground just for a crappy bar line graph (based on assumptions)...

Actually my "Absolutely" referred to the first phrase, not the second one (my bad!)

The thrust of the argument seems the wrong way around. It's roughly:

- Knowledge of how to make Fogbank etc. was lost when the people retired and or died. AI will make things worse, especially for code.

In reality if they'd used AI, the knowledge in it would still be there as it doesn't retire or die or need paying a salary. I guess you have to keep a copy of the model file.

The article seems AI written with punchy sentences and mixed up logic.

The thrust of the argument seems the wrong way around. It's roughly:

- Knowledge of how to make Fogbank etc. was lost when the people retired and or died. AI will make things worse, especially for code.

In reality if they'd used AI the knowledge in it would still be there as it doesn't retire or die or need paying a salary. I guess you have to keep a copy of the model file.

The article seems AI written with punch sentances and mixed up logic.