The ease of buying things that the prior poster referred to is basically just three things:
- A massive common market with few to no internal trade barriers/complications. The EU is still nowhere near as integrated and has all sorts of odd hidden complications to actually moving + selling things.
- Hell, just this week I've seen that one of the indie record labels I pay attention to will no longer sell merch within the EU other than to the country they're based in, because the new EU packaging regulations make it infeasibly expensive to comply with for every country for the small volumes they move.
- A common language that ~92% of the population speak fluently.
- Relatively efficient logistics.
None of this has anything to do with "dismantling the welfare state" and has only a little to do with differences in workers rights/benefits - giving delivery workers in the US better wages/job security would not make the "Amazon" logistics model infeasible.
I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but as far as I can tell from some brief searching, indigenous populations that exist in the region today aren't living some nomadic life out in the wilderness either. They're living in cities and towns like almost everyone else does.
So a post like this is still correct in how it's presented.
Almost no one is actually living out at "the end of the world" in the wilderness with few or no other people around, and it is potentially a topic of interest/curiosity to hear about those who do.
If this is the case, they probably outright do not want you as a customer.
Significant sales (beyond for excess stock clearance/discontinued items) exist largely to generate some excitement from potential customers and to lure them in to taking a look at the site/store and to hopefully get them to buy some extra stuff that's less discounted while they're there.
The actual on-sale item is potentially losing money for the business or at break-even.
------
A person who's running a series of bots like this to track the exact lowest price on the internet for items over time and to always only buy at the lowest price it's ever been sold for....is probably the least likely kind of customer to buy anything extra that's actually profitable for the business.
> If this is the case, they probably outright do not want you as a customer.
Almost certainly! No eComm site wants the cautious shopper that's done their comparisons and knows price trends; they want the impulsive people with a line of credit.
I doubt that my local grocery store is happy that I index all of my receipts so I know what I buy, how often and when the prices change so I know when a discount on something I buy every once in a while is actually a discount.
When I built this a few years ago, I had to write a lot of code to make all this work.
I would expect that more and more people will discover that their LLM of choice can do this, that their LLM of choice can help them comparison shop and do analysis of when - historically - is the best time to buy that new TV or whatever (yes, pricing on this stuff is seasonal!).
Maybe _most_ people will never do this, maybe I'm wrong. But if i'm not, blocking all bots "because bots are bad, mmmkay" is how you loose a sale.
Ignoring the specific price data example, more and more and more people _are_ browsing the web through an LLM. Assuming that continues, blocking bots is going to have the same effect on your traffic as doing everything in the "what not to do" section of the google SEO guide book.
Sorry, but no. This does not pass the smell test in the slightest.
This is:
- A single author paper with no academic affiliations.
- A search on the internet for this author finds them also pitching essential oils and a wide variety of other "alternative medicine" on the Youtube/Podcast grifter circuit and not the sorts of alternative medicine anyone seriously thinks might have some merit.
- The address listed for his supposed place of practice appears to be a roadside "clini-spa" advertising beauty treatments.
- This could only get published in some low-impact journal that's solely about the purported benefits of mushrooms, even though if true this would be a pretty revolutionary finding that would be of interest to far bigger journals.
Can I prove it's fraud? No, especially since I'm not paying $25 to look at the paper details.
But unless this finding replicates from someone with credibility, I don't think this means much of anything and I certainly don't think you should be taking anything in this paper as a fact.
Your cause/effect doesn't have all that much truth to it with regards to rail.
German rail has been an under-invested in mess since reunification, it's a long slide not a recent one. They are finally investing the kind of amounts in it they need to, to actually revive it to what it should be. It's going to be a long road to actually get there, of course.
We tried "preventing forest fires" for about a century, and it's a large part of why they're burning so intensely and destructively now.
Forest fires are a natural part of the life cycle of many forested regions - particularly in Canada and the Western US.
Suppressing all fires as soon as possible means that dead, dry plant matter continues to build up for decades longer than it naturally would, creating a "tinderbox" effect where eventually you have vastly more intense and destructive forest fires than would typically have occurred if you'd just left nature alone in the first place. And because these fires have so much more concentrated fuel they also burn hotter and can make the recovery of the forest in the area take far longer to come back.
The correct answer is to regularly perform controlled burns in areas near human settlement and to mostly leave things alone in areas away from it. Much of Canada's land area is literally uninhabited and dozens if not hundreds of miles from the nearest road, much less actual settlement.
--------
Additionally: Strongly discourage new construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface (aka: low density settlement in a wooded setting, your typical picture-esque rural mountain home - that wood is meant to burn one day, taking your cute house with it). Beyond that, strict building codes for whatever does get built there + ordinances for maintaining the space around the home to reduce risk.
Although to a significant extent, property insurers are basically already taking on this role in recent years. I have family out in the hills in CO, their insurance rates are multiple times that of their property taxes and they are now quite strict on evaluating properties in terms of risk-mitigation. And failure to adhere to all of what they want to see means you're getting dropped by the insurer and you will have a very hard time getting a different company to pick you up.
------
Anyway, as another poster noted: The forest grows back and recaptures all that carbon in a few decades, making those fires basically carbon-neutral.
Tough economics to imagine attempting to effectively gather mulch from in between the trees when we're talking areas so remote they often aren't even harvested for actual lumber and are a huge distance from the nearest power plant (or grid connection of any significant capacity).
-------
However, this isn't addressing the other problem: Fire is an actual part of the ecosystem in those areas. Various plant/tree species are adapted around it. Some require fire for their seeds to germinate, others need the cleared ground that results (and their seeds can survive the fire), others rely on it to keep other species out with adaptations that make them much less likely to burn in a moderate intensity/natural fire (and so they survive while an invading species doesn't).
Fire also opens up areas and causes natural forest succession - which creates an environment for more than just the biggest trees to exist for a few decades. Etc, etc, etc.
You simply can't have the natural environment out there exist as it is evolved to function without fire in the long-term.
This headline/article is about cleaning up sites from the early years of nuclear experimentation/research and from nuclear weapons production.
There were various accidents and a great deal of improper (at least by modern standards) handling of materials and wastes. The cleanup being talked about here is about cleaning up that contamination.
There's no dispute from anyone on any side that I am aware of that these places are heavily contaminated, need to be cleaned up, and are complicated to clean up.
-------
This headline and the findings have absolutely nothing to do with handling nuclear waste from commercial power production or commercial nuclear reactor sites.
Cigarettes kill about 480,000 people in the US annually. Lung cancer isn't the only kind of cancer you get from smoking cigarettes, and cancer isn't the only way it can lead to your death, so it seems very strange to only pay attention to lung cancer here.
You don't need lung cancer to have an absolutely miserable decline and death from COPD, for example.
I almost agree. Have you tried to add an image in LaTeX that does not wander to a random page?
\begin{figure}[HERE!!!!!!]
or something like that.
And in the old compiler, I remember a problem with bounding boxes, and keeping a eps and pdf version of each image to get a correct dvi and pdf. I think this part is fixed now.
The ease of buying things that the prior poster referred to is basically just three things:
- A massive common market with few to no internal trade barriers/complications. The EU is still nowhere near as integrated and has all sorts of odd hidden complications to actually moving + selling things.
- Hell, just this week I've seen that one of the indie record labels I pay attention to will no longer sell merch within the EU other than to the country they're based in, because the new EU packaging regulations make it infeasibly expensive to comply with for every country for the small volumes they move.
- A common language that ~92% of the population speak fluently.
- Relatively efficient logistics.
None of this has anything to do with "dismantling the welfare state" and has only a little to do with differences in workers rights/benefits - giving delivery workers in the US better wages/job security would not make the "Amazon" logistics model infeasible.