ranandtoldthat

This seems unfairly dismissive of someone who's proved themselves time and again. The article might not be about what you wish it was about but it's insightful about the topic it covers.

Doctorow has been on a roll recently. Not that he ever really stops

In that case, I suggest you stop throwing dirt at GN.

Yes, California does do controlled burns. This senator is being disingenuous as are any other talking heads claiming they don't.

The state has increased the budget for and amount of controlled burns (as well as creation of firebreaks which both enable controlled burns and reduce spread of wildfires) in recent years, including after the federal government under trump reduced maintenance of federal lands. Voters have supported this through propositions as well including one last election.

Controlled burns also require a lot of care and resources or they can turn into wildfires, so there's only so many the state can do at a time. The past few years have actually allowed for more than previously.

LA had unseasonably low precipitation and high winds that contributed to the rapid spread of the current fires.

Should California do more controlled burns? Probably, but the state is very much doing what it can.

But, it's easier to point fingers at the very people taking preventative measures than help your countrymen in a time of need.

Activity Pub is a very popular way to decentralize.

With political uncertainty around centralized meteorological data infrastructure, it makes sense to continue the process of decentralization. The underlying APIs can be changed in the future if needed.

Peer review is false security, so much bad and fraudulent science gets through, but due to the stamp of authority people are less skeptical. Additionally it's harder to publish good science.

There's a lot of people who understand this better than me who can explain it. Here's one starting point. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

Forbes, for many years, has been mostly written by freelance bloggers. Some is very high quality (some is not) but it's not like an editor in a newsroom is asking for these stories.

They have journalists on staff still but they write a minority of what Forbes publishes online.

Not to defend Google because they violate privacy in many ways, but they absolutely do not share that level of data with partners. This is not some ethical decision. The data is just far too valuable to Google. Google is extracting as much value as they can from users, advertisers, and publishers, and if they sold access to the data itself, publishers and advertisers could begin cutting out Google. Instead Google gives advertisers a lot of control over what users to target, and uses the data inside a black box to show those ads.

Google is hoarding your data and using it to show you ads with minimal built-in opt-outs. But they aren't sell your data.

Ford was never on the ticket, he was appointed after Agnew resigned. He's the only president to never be elected to either the presidency or vice presidency.

They also have a book about human evolution. 😵

Any port in a storm, indeed.

GPT 1 and 2 were both more open than later releases. However I'm not sure any are fully FOSS.