Even if you reduce it to that, you still endorse (or at least accept) the side effects of the production of what you eat.
If you eat meat, you are okay with the effects it has on climate change, and that’s political. If you do the opposite and don’t eat meat, that’s also political.
If you consume food from non-organic agriculture, you are okay with species extinction, especially insects.
If you buy the cheapest foods, you are okay with the working conditions and low pay necessary to reach the price. If you buy a more expensive option, who in the value chain benefits from the increased price and who doesn’t?
Almost everything that you do is political in some way.
> No dude. Most things are not, in fact, political. When I enjoy a meal, that isn't political. When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political. When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.
What do you eat and what do you refuse to eat? Which restaurants would you go to or not? Which companies do you buy from and why/why not?
Who do you meet with and who do you avoid? What do you talk about and which topics do you avoid?
Where is your cocoa grown, which brand do you buy and who ends up making money on your purchase?
It’s probably pointless to argue, but there was never a lot of nuclear power in Germany to begin with. This is just turning energy policy into culture war.
In practice, repairs affect the water resistance, and Apple Store employees will confirm that to you. They just don't want to say so in the product description as it would raise doubts.
In a way, that's true. Drinking a lot of juice, or soft drinks, is not ideal, and when I see an overweight person drinking straight from a large juice bottle, that reaffirms my belief. It would be socially unacceptable to judge this behavior as being caused by cognitive deficits, but you could argue that such people are acting against their own interests (which is a very human thing to do, we're not machines).
The case of watching a lot of TV is a bit different though because it's about attention. Time is limited and it makes a difference whether I do something intellectually stimulating or not. If I spend 8 hours per day creating things, writing software, learning languages, etc., that is going to develop my brain in a different way than 8 hours of watching TV does.
Now to the point about the bad look: even if the study could not prove a causal relationship, why would you even risk it? There is little to gain from watching lots of TV and you'll end up healthier and happier by prioritizing other things.
Laypeople are changing how “AI” is used in common language, like they previously did for “algorithm” and “crypto”.
The textbook definition of AI is a system that solves problems that are difficult for humans. Whether the approach uses formal logic, machine learning, neural networks as a special case of machine learning, optimization, search problems, etc. does not matter.
Since he spent Euros, he must be somewhere on the EU. This is a GDPR violation and I bet he can reach actual people that are able to help by mailing their GDPR legal contact.
The "doing things correctly" mentality is the root of so many problems. Bureaucracy, "German engineering" (overengineering), cargo-culting, CYA, error culture, ...
By the logic of the article, a circuit breaker for the DB query would act as a fallback for the fallback. A path that would be executed in production even less frequently, and which would be more difficult to test for its effectiveness. Surely, you can test whether the circuit breaker is triggered, but would it reduce DB load enough to keep the fulfillment system running?
Eye roll. The UN are pointing out that the AI hype is literally burning the planet. Just because they have Google Analytics on their site doesn't mean they are participating in the destruction.
This is like calling out environmentalists that took a flight.
But you’re not carrying around your own water treatment mechanism either (unless you’re out hiking). It is relatively easy to install air purifiers or UVC lights in offices, schools, grocery stores, etc. The problem is that people don’t care enough about air quality and the ROI isn’t clear. Increasing the ventilation rate in an overstuffed co-working space has cost implications for the operator, but it doesn’t increase revenue.
Europe is not a country or a single place. In central Spain, where 40 ºC is more likely, you'll find more air conditioning than in the UK, where people think that 25 ºC is hot.
If you eat meat, you are okay with the effects it has on climate change, and that’s political. If you do the opposite and don’t eat meat, that’s also political.
If you consume food from non-organic agriculture, you are okay with species extinction, especially insects.
If you buy the cheapest foods, you are okay with the working conditions and low pay necessary to reach the price. If you buy a more expensive option, who in the value chain benefits from the increased price and who doesn’t?
Almost everything that you do is political in some way.