Big farms use crazy automated machines that almost (or do) drive themselves. Maximizing output allows them to set the market price because to generate so much compared to any other grower (like OPEC with oil).
If farmers can't profitably farm they sell the land off to other interests or go bankrupt. People are not choosing to go into farming....at all. thus a bankrupt farm will sit fallow, be bought by some golf course development, or be turned into a "nature preserve", reducing capacity. The dots are not hard to connect.
The dots connect differently than you suggest. Sure, maybe in a suburban area the farms turn to golf courses. Many small farms are scooped up by larger farms. Looks like almost 10% reduction in number of farms since '86 and the size of the large farms have increased.
This is obviously false. If nobody at all had gone into farming in the last 40 years, there would be no farmers left. Let me introduce you to my neighbors, the farmers. Hint: they don't live in San Francisco. Drive through Central Valley and guess how many 20-40 year old farmers are involved in all that food production.
There are much fewer farmers than there used to be. But simple math tells you that more food consumption divided by fewer farmers provides a huge opportunity for more profit per farmer. If you are politically- and business-savvy enough you can become enormously wealthy.
It’s probably a tool that could be used for generating a likely appearance for helping to find a person to interrogate, similar to eye witness sketches. I would hope it’s never allowed at trial though.
Prosecutors would need to be able to defend every element they use to gather evidence in court. Nothing downstream from inadmissible evidence can be admissible in court. “Fruit of the poisonous tree.”
No. Actually, that’s not true. If you upscaled a picture of a drug deal and then used that to narrow your search set and then posted a watch on that set to catch them dealing drugs, you’ve got a useful case. Totally admissible.
Need to be careful what data the AI model is trained on. i.e. it could bias the features of a particular race, causing those people to be held as suspects more often.
unless they are getting their CO2 from capturing it out of the atmopsphere, I see this as a way to dirty up wind and solor even more than they already are from their manufacturing.
> When electricity is required, the liquid CO2 is run through an evaporator to turn it back to a pressurised gas, which is then warmed up back to 290-300°C causing the stored heat. The gas is then introduced into an expansion turbine, where it rapidly expands at atmospheric pressure to drive a power-generating rotor, with the uncompressed CO2 then stored in a flexible dome — hence the company name — at ambient temperature and pressure for later re-use.
It's a closed loop system, so it doesn't seem particularly dirty to me, presuming the energy to run it will come from the renewable source that it's storing. The materials used to make it (steel, quartzite, PVC) don't seem too troubling.
Seems a bit cleaner than chemical batteries at first glance.
Spadacini adds: “The system is totally closed. We don’t consume any CO2, it’s just the working fluid that goes back and forth… for the life of the system, over 25 years. So we have no emissions in the atmosphere.”
The difference between 95% protective and 88% is more significant than you think if you live in a low vaccinated area. The more exposure to the virus you have the more likely it is you will get infected. It’s the spread we need to concern ourselves with, not just personal protection.
To level set, my comments were mainly targeted at the US coverage of the Delta variant where the vaccination rates are largely due to choice rather than accessibility.
>The difference between 95% protective and 88% is more significant than you think if you live in a low vaccinated area.
..but if I live in a low vaccinated area, the only thing that will help me after getting vaccinated is other people getting vaccinated. Also, the 88% effective rate of the mRNA vaccines against the delta variant is still significantly higher than the non-mRNA vaccines like Astrazeneca against the primary strain. Is 95% better than 88%, sure, but as far as vaccines go 88% is still very effective. The FDA was originally targeting 50-65% effectiveness in their initial approval guidelines.
>It’s the spread we need to concern ourselves with, not just personal protection.
Those two concepts are interlinked. If people are not concerned with personal protection, then it's highly unlikely that they will be concerned about the spread. The best thing to minimize the spread and protect yourself is to get the vaccine. It's that straightforward.
>The more exposure to the virus you have the more likely it is you will get infected
This is the same for everything, not just Covid. As I mentioned, the numbers in the US are very low, so my chance of exposure is already low. In a nation of 330 million people the total number of cases over the last week can fit in a football stadium. In regards to the exposure risk in the US it's fairly minimal.
For antivirals, the hypothesis is a viral infection that the amyloids and tau are responses to. A study in Taiwan showed promising results.
For TDAP, nobody knows. All we have is a flabbergastingly strong signal from statistical analysis of the US Veterans' Administration entire cohort from 2012-2018. Is it the tetanus, the diphtheria, the pertussis vaccine? An "inactive" ingredient? Something else very, very strongly correlated with administration of booster, such as a more active lifestyle? If it is anything at all, it seems to be the only thing that works, other than maybe herpes treatment.
