Source?

Because, we’re exporting more refined products than we import too, so we’d sure be running out real fast at that rate.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

An enclosed space can also get hotter than the “burning temperature” of whatever fuel you are using to heat it up. Because heat keeps accumulating if it has nowhere to escape to.

Yeah, that kinda reeked of misinformation to me. The US is largely energy independent these days, we’re a net exporter, not an importer.

Which is why they claimed their city was founded by a couple brothers of divine origin, right? And calling Plinys Naturalis Historia respected by modern historiography is laughable, I’m sorry. Naturally it wasn’t his fault, he was mainly compiling other primary sources of his time, but it is in no way something that should be simply taken at face value.

Regardless, my broader point was never to try to say that history began with the printing press or something. Clearly, if it were not for older records in everything from the knotwork language of ancient Peru to newly readable scrolls recovered from the Vesuvius eruption, we wouldn’t have any clue what happened previous to the 15th century, now would we? Which, clearly we do.

Instead, I was making a point about the nature of information accuracy, and the importance of skepticism in approaching information. In the same way I wouldn’t want to read Pliny and assume it’s contents were 100% accurate, I also wouldn’t want to just believe everything I see online. It’s not new to have reason to doubt our information space, and thus the effects of AI misinformation are overblown imo. Appropriate skepticism and critical thinking skills are still a viable solution.

Lastly, please explain how this:

So I would say they did certainly have a significant understanding of how their culture fit into the broader scope of human history.

follows from this:

One of the papers I wrote for a class about the importance of comparing primary sources featured 3 different accounts of what Athens was like and the views people there held at a certain point in history from 3 different people of varying social and financial status, and there was absolutely awareness of that sort of dissonance between what their government claimed and what the reality was even among the more common folk.

I fail to see how three people disagreeing about Athenian history means they understood how Athenian history fit into global history.

Certainly, but before widespread literacy, did a large portion of the populace have interest in and access to them? Particularly an accurate understanding of how their own culture fit into the broader scope of human history?

Basic animal physiology for common animals is pretty well nailed down, I presume you could look that up. We probably also know how big their internal organs are, on average, just as an example.

Also note, for free vs no reward are not the same. Being cited as an author of something, anything, is important for advancement and recognition in your field. Students seldom get much financial compensation for the research necessary to graduate, for instance.

That said, I’m guessing. I am not in biology or any of its offshoots.

I would disagree. I think if we go back even a few centuries, we find that virtually nobody had a firm grasp on historical fact, due to the printing press not being invented yet, alongside archeological techniques not existing.

We’re about to live in a world where nobody can tell truth from fiction.

I would argue that our long history of devising myths indicates we have always lived so.

Probably just because some people really like Stalin, and have become convinced his accounts are the truthful ones and everyone else lies about him.

It’s not really a new problem, people were doing it with their imaginations and stories long before AI came around. The tools of the digital age simply amplified the effect. Healthy skepticism is still the solution, that hasn’t changed.

It’ll never actually go away, though. Of all the possibile ways of looking at any given situation, the vast majority will always be inaccurate. Fiction simply outnumbers nonfiction. Wrong answers outnumber correct answers.

So, the adjustment has to be inside of us, and again, it’s always been necessary. This isn’t fundamentally new.

It’s hard, but don’t blink. If you blink it gets under your eyelids. If you don’t, the tears just continuously wash it down.

Probably nobody. Study like this wouldn’t cost much, you’d just be reviewing footage of penguins looking for them to shit. Easy way to get an authorship credit.

My guess anyway, I haven’t actually checked the methodology.

Changes in local climate can lead to disruptions in production that can result in higher prices? Neat.

One of my favorite things in the current state of politics is how this issue directly pits Trump and Musk against each other’s interests. I doubt either of them cares that much, but it still amuses me.

Agreed. Though it does help explain the attacks you see in different internet spaces.

Science does not draw firm conclusions until irrefutable evidence is provided, so the actual answer is “don’t know for sure, but evidence points to a natural origin”.

Importantly though, it doesn’t really matter, since if it was some kind of lab escapee, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Overseas bio-engineering is not something that can be policed, since its functionally identical to the practice of studying certain aspects of medicine.

So, it’s kinda a waste of time and a red herring to care about it. The sort of bio-engineering that could theoretically create epidemics is absolutely happening, and cannot and should not be halted, since the same studies can also help cure diseases.

It’s not too different from a nuclear program, which can make weapons and/or civilian power plants. Except nuclear facilities are extremely hard to hide due to being huge and radioactive, where bio-engineering tools can be found in every major hospital.

tbf, they do look the same if you approach it from either the position of abolishing capitalism, or of instituting fascism. Since they both would strongly oppose that.

Thank you for the correction. I was taking note of the highest increases being in former Warsaw Pact countries rather than the top 20.

Yeah, but we’re going to have to regulate our massive companies to address that. Outrage is very profitable. Fear sells, just like sex.

I think anarchists are important too. It’s our plurality of positions that makes us free. And stronger/more innovative in the idea space.