

Most of them are leaving. I think the ones remaining rely on bundling with other insurance or services.


Most of them are leaving. I think the ones remaining rely on bundling with other insurance or services.


Paper is paywalled, but from the SciTech article it looks like mostly it was sodium sulfate. They did also make some “ocean-degradable plastics”.


Thanks for the link and breakdown.
It sounds like a better description of the estimated thinking speed would be 5-50 bits per second. And when summarizing capacity/capability, one generally uses a number near the top end. It makes far more sense to say we are capable of 50 bps but often use less, than to say we are only capable of 10 but sometimes do more than we are capable of doing. And the paper leans hard into 10 bps being a internally imposed limit rather than conditional, going as far as saying a neural-computer interface would be limited to this rate.
“Thinking speed” is also a poor description for input/output measurement, akin to calling a monitor’s bitrate the computer’s FLOPS.
Visual processing is multi-faceted. I definitely don’t think all of vision can be reduced to 50bps, but maybe the serial part after the parallel bits have done stuff like detecting lines, arcs, textures, areas of contrast, etc.


Unfortunately that pretty much depends on building more housing, which takes time and Congress.


In August, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the company, alleging its pricing algorithm allows landlords to collectively push rents higher.


In August, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the company, alleging its pricing algorithm allows landlords to collectively push rents higher.


It was in fact very badly written, with stuff like wage changes taking effect “immediately” (in practice 5 days after vote counts are certified).


This saying is a pet peeve of mine, because it’s so contrary to the actual meaning of “eye for an eye”, which is a prohibition against escalation. Like in this case the guy injured someone’s neck and wrist, so the maximum punishment would be injuring his neck and wrist, not killing him. That’s not to say “eye for an eye” is an ideal justice system, just that it is opposed to wanton revenge and violence.
omg Toad, you can’t just ask people why they’re purple!


If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.
Perhaps not every disability benefit is, but Social Security Disability Insurance and State Disability Insurance certainly are.
I think the “correct” usage of acronym is only when it is spoken as a word. But language evolves and all that.
You can see the tension in the way MW defines it (including the extended description). Like: here’s the definition of the word, but some people use it when they actually mean initialism. This is in contrast to your more concise and cohesive definition of “[abbreviations] that take the first letter from each word”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym

It hard to see this as anything other than a bad faith comparison.
It is important to consider the entire life cycle of LNG, but a more even-handed author would conclude we should address these inefficiencies (e.g. via regulation), rather than fixating on promoting coal.
Direct link to paper: https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934
Lemmy without politics is kinda a ghost board. There is maybe 3 or 4 new posts a day.
I think your approach of blocking any user who posts about politics is eliminating the most prolific posters when 95% of their stuff is non-political. This is not to say your approach is bad, just that it doesn’t actually represent “Lemmy without politics”.


I think transforming “it’s possible to think without language” into “language is not a tool for thought” is an overreach. Definitely a lot of our internal voice is post-thought, but crystalizing those thoughts into words can provide footholds for further thought. Some would argue it’s not possible to think through a complex issue without writing:


I guess the argument is that they will raise rent by the maximum, even at excessive risk of losing tenants? Because if the tenants will pay that much, why wouldn’t the landlord charge that anyway?


Definite agree with the core of what you’re saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree “High income countries”), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).


Oh man, don’t stop
You got it! Here’s some other consumer protections the administration has introduced recently:
Hungry for more? Check this out:
White House Statement on Junk Fees
That’s from October, so some of it overlaps, but among other stuff there’s still a “Click to Cancel” rule working its way through the FTC.
Sadly Biden has been spending a bunch of time on lame crap like climate change, human rights, health care, infrastructure, election integrity, etc., so it might take a bit longer for him to single-handedly usher in consumer utopia.


This seems entirely opposite to my observation. I’d say Biden and his administration are unusually focused on unfair or annoying business practices. In just the past two weeks the Biden administration:
Well they saved “258 million” people from fentanyl overdose in 100 days; finding half of them jobs in a week should be no problem.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pam-bondi-fentanyl-258m/