https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_life_from_clay

GLP-1 then addresses factor X, and the problems it causes, including weight gain.

Not that obesity doesn't independently cause problems but very plausible causality runs more than one way.

With internal turmoil, yes. To maintain the lines in Ukraine Russia needs to constantly send in troops and materiel.

Eventually Russia may decide not to do so. And then there is no magic "pause the frontlines" button if they do.

There is plenty of precedent for this in Russian history too. The Russian Revolution collapsed the frontlines in WWI. The Soviet Empire collapsed with the fall of communism and concomitant internal turmoil.

Russian propaganda puts a lot effort into treating Russia as some sort of force of nature that cannot be deterred or reasoned with, that will advance and hold Ukraine at all costs.

It isn't true. They're humans like the rest of us, not a natural, unstoppable force.

I never was interested in the tinkering side. The functional side has been very handy.

For example, smart thermostats reduced the heating bill 40% while leaving the place warmer where we actually are.

Smart dimmers on lamps let you dim them in the evening, or turn all the lights off with one push.

Your use cases may vary and the answer may be none do it but a good level of smart home things are quite practical.

Simultaneously, air pollution is down, which lowers symptoms.

So it wouldn't surprise me if respiratory incidence is down. Of course there were also more kids in the 1970s, to your point.

This is comparing to the base case of fossil fuels. But those have tremendous negative consequences.

Contrary to the law's assumption, news is worth hardly anything to Meta, so they just stopped showing it.

Does the Australian law really say:

1. You must show news, even if you don't want to

2. You must pay to do so

3. The rate will be determined by negotiation with the people you are paying

4. You cannot say no to them in aggregate

I have my doubts, but if it does I still doubt it will get the results the govt wants. The problem is news is not valuable to Meta.

Not considering this tradeoff has led to much carbon waste.

You could do "life of author or X years, whichever is longer". Or include a period after death.

But you see how the complexities come in.

Markets are powerful. No real solution other than making market competitive alternatives such that the desire to dig up oil is simply lost. This may or may not be feasible.

If your stat had any sense then atmospheric carbon levels would rapidly plunge in a few centuries without humans burning carbon. They plainly don't do that.

Co2 parts per million are a stock, like the level of water in a bathtub. Annual emissions are a flow, like how strongly the water is flowing in.

The tub is fuller than ever before AND filling at the fastest rate ever.

The problem is that carbon energy is useful. So unless something globally beats almost all use cases then somewhere marginally it will be worth burning vs not burning it.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.

There had also been Iranian strikes on desalination plants and near the end strikes on Saudi Arabia's red sea assets. I believe these were very convincing.

I would say they did. Gulf countries ran out of missile and drone defenses and a lot of infrastructure was getting hit. Long run loss of capacity here would be worse than temporary strait closure and there were a lot of assets left to hit.