Evolution and natural selection never stops, we've only changed what the selective pressures are.
It's like we're going back to the pre-internet era but it's obviously a little different. Before the internet, there were just a few major media providers on TV plus lots of local newspapers. I would say that, for the most part in the USA, the public trusted TV news sources even though their material interests weren't aligned (regular people vs big media corporations). It felt like there wasn't a reason not to trust them, since they always told an acceptable version of the truth and there wasn't an easy way to find a different narrative (no internet or crazy cable news). Local newspapers were usually very trusted, since they were often locally owned and part of the community.
The internet broke all of those business models. Local newspapers died because why do you need a paper when there are news websites? Major media companies were big enough to weather the storm and could buy up struggling competitors. They consolidated and one in particular started aggressively spinning the news to fit a narrative for ratings and political gain of the ownership class. Other companies followed suit.
This, paired with the thousands of available narratives online, weakened the credibility of the major media companies. Anyone could find the other side of the story or fact check whatever was on TV.
Now what is happening? The internet is being polluted with garbage and lies. It hasn't been good for some time now. Obviously anyone could type up bullshit, but for a minute photos were considered reliable proof (usually). Then photoshopping something became easier and easier, which made videos the new standard of reliable proof (in most cases).
But if anything can be fake now and difficult to identify as fake, then how can you fact check anything? Only those with the means will be able to produce undeniably real news with great difficulty, which I think will return power to major news companies or something equivalent.
I'm probably wrong about what the future holds, so what do you think is going to happen?
duckduckgo has been working well imo
How is a microchip edible? Big as a sand grain? How does it work? How long has this tech existed? How many microchips have I eaten? Do they stop working if I eat them?
It's just a ship dropping out of warp a safe distance from our system. While inconvenient, it's considered best practice to drop out well away from the system's center to shed the particles you've accumulated in your warp bubble during transit. They are extremely energetic and can cause immense damage if released irresponsibly close to an inhabited planet. This is especially true when visiting a primitive world that hasn't set up any sensible warp safety systems.
And if that isn't enough, here's why the US congress bends over backwards to give Israel whatever it wishes: https://theintercept.com/2023/11/03/deconstructed-israel-aipac-squad-primary/
tl;dl: If a politician says something critical of Israel, pro-Israel lobbying groups will fund their opponents' campaigns
I don't know why y'all are arguing about fruit. I have a hunch that there's some fructose in high fructose corn syrup, which is in just about every processed sweet tasting thing made in the USA. That's probably contributing to obesity a bit more than peaches, ffs.
"So they told me that, according to the most advanced theories and techniques in every field, based on extensive theoretical research and experimentation, through analysis and comparison of multiple proposals, they did find a way to preserve information for about one hundred million years. And they emphasized that this was the only method known to be practicable: carving words into stone"
Honest question:
If they're bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments instead of building new single family dwellings, isn't that helping the housing crisis by supplying higher density housing? Like you can house more people with less land?
The problem the tweet is pointing out is that research scientists are mostly concerned about getting and keeping funding since their jobs and the jobs of those working for them depend on it. Thus they'll target research questions that are deemed sexy by those in control of the funds. This can lead to a few areas being over-researched and other worthy areas of inquiry being underfunded. Plus that over-researched work can be of questionable quality and importance since a lot of less-good scientists get funded due to the overabundance of funds.
I really don't understand why you're nitpicking someone who is trying to drastically reduce their impact. What would you recommend they do?