I'm sure someone's working on a way to tell the difference programmatically. Maybe a combo of tone, grammar, and some way of telling how fast it was typed using metadata (which may not exist). Even if there was a "probable AI" filter, that would be helpful because it would be a starting point to improve upon.
There is another, deeper level of happiness, not mentioned in any of these comments. Around 62% of the US population has found it. That number used to be higher. In the tech world it's much smaller percentage. The powerful love you feel as a father or mother can actually be compounded, even when didn't think that was possible. It comes from first principles and historical truths. There is a book about it - it's the best selling book of all time.
And turns out the patterns and metaphor in this book can be co opted. Without belief in the supernatural, or submission to human authority structures. Though still receiving and giving the same benefits.
Love isn't owned by a king, it's already built in, inherent to all of us.
A recent X thread by UK MP Andrew Bridgen compiles quotes from 16 scientists who previously worked with or contributed to IPCC reports. The statements accuse the IPCC of:
deliberately downplaying uncertainties
excluding or minimizing solar/climate natural variability
politicizing the process and suppressing dissenting views
producing misleading press summaries that diverge from the underlying science
cherry-picking data on sea-level rise, extreme weather trends, and model performance
Among the named scientists are several well-known figures in climate skeptic circles (Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Richard Tol, Nils-Axel Mörner, etc.).The post has attracted significant engagement in certain political/climate-skeptic communities and is being used to question the IPCC's scientific integrity and the legitimacy of its policy-relevant conclusions.
Curious if anyone reading this has explored the alternative theories to Darwinian evolution. I only recently started looking at it, so don't want to share links because I don't know what is believable. But it seems there are major flaws that even Darwin knew about. He considered Origin of Species an abstract, and was promising the full "big book" for the rest of his life, but never was able to pull it together.
> But it seems there are major flaws that even Darwin knew about.
Sure. He recognized the importance of inheritance, but didn't know the mechanism. We've learned a lot since Darwin's days about how it all works - genetics, in particular - but the basic concept has held up just fine.
Can you elaborate on this? My understanding is that evolution (to be precise, we're presumably referring to natural selection) has been proven again and again and that there is a clear scientific consensus around it, and I'm not familiar with any particular large gaps in the theory.
I'm guessing it's passages like this one regarding transitional forms:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
reply