In mice the link is clear and simple to test.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311462/

In people for what cancers have been investigates there is also evidence of a link, but not enough studies have been done to say that it's the case for all cancers. This is absense of evidence rather than evidence of absence.

They are friendly in the same way the feeding a baby petrol is. Sure it's more energy efficient, but humans aren't machines where input = output. It's going to take decades to get rid of all of them, and then even longer for all the cancers that blue light causes to work themselves out. It's amazing that we invented a new asbestos and put a green wash on it.

This is the most accurate map and it still under reports light pollution under 21.5sqm https://www.darkskysites.com/

Worse satellite constilations may make it impossible to have a dark sky anywhere: https://arxiv.org/html/2604.09427v1

Led lights have caused such a massive increase in light pollution, let alone the effects on humans due to the blue spike, that they should be banned outright.

I'm starting to think people impressed by LLMs are for the first time in their life not using a hammer on fastening screws and deeply impressed by tools that font fight them every step of the way.

I would like to request the US sanctions all members of the EU parliament asap.

Everything is a finite shared resource.

That's the point of ownership.

>The idea of treating land as a pure asset has had a lot of negative social effects and ultimately will lead to a kind of neo-feudalism where the megarich own everything and the underclasses are perpetual renters.

The idea that land is not a pure asset leads to regular feudalism.

This is bringing us back to the dark ages in terms of land rights.

It very much does matter.

>Hey can I come into room 1?

Sure. That's the lobby.

>How about room 101?

Sure. That's where we keep the nuclear launch button. Don't press anything red.