The only status it brings is "smart enough to not use Windows 11" or "cares enough to get the work done rather than fighting with Linux on laptops".
(I use Linux on desktop as a first choice, but it's always been an uphill struggle with laptop wifi/power manglement/audio for me. I blame the esoteric chipsets used in the machines I've bought in the UK)
I have blue collar friends in California that consider apple products a sign of leftism and I hate to say it, but even sexuality (but that moreso in a joking way.)
Yeah, but then MacBook is going to run smoother and faster than the Windows one (and I don’t want to spend even one extra minute on dealing with drivers on Linux). There’re just objective benchmarks for that.
And MacBooks also have a better display and build quality. Like, touchpad is still hit or miss on any non-Apple device.
That’s why you shouldn’t take it at face value. Ethically speaking, the experiment must have been approved by the institutional review board. If there’re ethical concerns, these can be raised with them.
But I don’t think anyone “feeling uneasy” should be an argument once the ethical concerns have been considered and experiment has been approved.
The problem is, no amount of climate policies in the West is going to offset burning fuel in the developing counties. It’s a global phenomenon and addressing it locally is futile. That, and you don’t have the luxury of green solutions when energy prices were going through the roof.
Imagine what could be accomplished if Americans used their global influence to affect global change on climate issues with the same zeal that they pursue manipulative trade deals.
Surely it's better to be more reliant on domestically/locally produced wind and solar when oil and gas production by 3rd party countries is plummeting?
This is not only wrong but you are bending over backwards to maintain the state of ignorance which makes it possible to say that. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere did not come from developing countries, and every reduction buys more time to deal with the problem so, yes, local measures matter: as an example, the U.S. transportation sector is so carbon intensive that getting our average efficiency up will reduce global emissions by more than entire other countries produce.
This is even more wrong when you look at how Africa is electrifying. Unlike the United States, China continued to invest in solar panel production and so they’re now the cheapest option for electrical power for millions of people since solar panels run for decades and don’t require trucking diesel fuel around or building out power grids. Investments in batteries are having the same cycle: richer countries have the research universities and product development but then anyone can buy the product.
That’s why the fossil fuels spend so much money spreading messages like yours: they grew fat on government subsidies and they need those subsidies to continue or even expand as the basic economics increasingly favor renewables. Trump has to force coal plants to stay open because otherwise the operators would switch to cheaper options.
Ok so the wiki graph shows that annual emissions from the rest of the world are growing and US and EU contribute less and less while others contribute more? What’s the argument you’re making here?
The graph that shows the US as the #3 CO2 generator after China (#1), and all of Asia except China & India (#2)? The one that shows the US generating about half as much as China despite having less than a third of the population? The one that shows the US's contribution to be more than the continents of Africa, South America, and Oceania combined?
Struggling to see how one could look at such a chart and think it's futile for the US to take meaningful action.
Nice take on the trolley problem. "No amount of pulling the emergency brakes is going to prevent passengers from dying when this runaway train finally crashes. So let's be responsible adults and put the pedal to the metal."
OP mentions "six minutes" as a DB metric. But the thing is that DB doesn't care about trains being late. It's absolutely normal to have an hour delay in Germany. You can be considered lucky if it's under an hour. What will usually happen is that you spend half a day in some village waiting for your connection and travel the rest of the way standing in the doorway with your bags.
I've been on UK trains that were an hour late, others that changed platform at least three times, headed to the wrong destination etc.
Many are cancelled without a decent reason being given. I rarely take British trains now they are so expensive and unreliable. Only long distance maybe because buses are unpleasant.
There're certain kinds of rewards to encourage traveling by rail in Europe. For example, a training course I attended refunded part of your travel expenses if you took a long-distance train. And there're people who believe in not flying for the sake of the planet.
But at this point, I'm convinced you should avoid any train in and around Germany. This includes Denmark as well. Just take a plane, but don't have a layover in Germany. The same could probably be said about France. My first train from Paris to Nancy stopped for about 2hrs in the middle of nowhere. As the machinist said: "The train is tired."
Other countries like Italy or Spain seem to actually have well-functioning rail though.
I regularly travel on DSB (2.5hr journeys, 4 times a month minimum), and only very rarely encounter issues. Staff have always been easy to deal with and on the rare occasion I've had to be refunded (the carriage with my reserved seat didn't show up) I've received it within days.
Nope, leave Italy off the well-functioning rail. I am a commuter, i use the train here since 2009 and it's terrible. We're going through the same experiences described in the post, but often even much worse. On December 1st, my train took 6 hours to travel 100km instead of 1 hour so we too felt like the post author.
I have a relative with the same disease. They went to a an eye doctor because of visual artifacts. Turns out the tumor was so big it caused retinal detachment. Basically, most people get diagnosed at a very late stage because it's mostly asymptomatic.
First issue is that tumors don't necessarily have to be highly immunogenic, e.g. there're tumors that don't present many neoantigens on the surface. This means immune cells can't easily recognize them. Second issue is that tumor microenvironment evolves to be immunosuppressive. There're many different signals that regulate immune cells activation and simply having antigen-specific cells isn't enough. But as someone said in a sister thread, what you're describing is a basis for multiple clinical trials that combine antigen release with immune activation.
Yes, we were doing a clinical trial where the primary tumor was irradiated which causes antigen release. The patients were given immune checkpoint inhibitors at the same time to activate immune cells. It's promising but tricky.
> Releasing a bunch of loose cancer into the body is a clear causal mechanism
I'm not in cancer field, but I'm not sure it is. AFAIK the cells that metastasize need to undergo EMT. Simply releasing them from the tumor doesn't mean the cells can attach and survive in the distal site.
