Well, can they?

You son of a bitch…

My job here is done! Away!

The developer of Thorium (a Chromium based browser) has stated they intent to maintain older functionality for as long they’re able.

Most likely you’re correct, but I was basing my assumption from the following:

However, the Port Authority of NSW said no oil spills had been reported by vessels.

Time may tell I guess…

Natural undersea oil leak somewhere?

All of which should be done by human beings. Period.

Currently, maybe. But technology is fantastic at accuracy, better than humans in many regards. Gemini might have a way to go before it gets there, but it or its successors will get there and it’s moving fast.

Productivity is irrelevant here

I’m not sure it is. Productivity also refers to efficiency of services. If AI can make the services of the National Archives more productive for its staff and/or the public then surely that’s a good thing?

🎵 Tesla Optimus! Humans in disguise! 🎵

Second recommendation for Affinity Photo as a Photoshop replacement. 👍

Oh for sure. How we regulate AI (including how we power it) is really important, definitely.

Typical lack of nuance on the Internet, sadly. Everything has to be Bad or Good. Black or White. AI is either The best thing ever™ or The worst thing ever™. No room for anything in between. Considering negative news generates more clicks, you can see why the media tend to take the latter approach.

I also think much of the hate is just people jumping on the AI = bad band-wagon. Does it have issues? Absolutely. Is it perfect? Far from it. But the constant negativity has gotten tired. There’s a lot of fascinating discussion to be had around AI, especially in the art world, but God forbid you suggest it’s anything but responsible for the total collapse of civilisation as we know it…

Looks delicious!

Actually people are voting for climate action, enough to potentially have swung results in America:

• https://zenodo.org/records/10494414
• https://www.cbsnews.com/politicalclimate/

And we see the same in Europe:

• https://www.e3g.org/publications/strong-climate-action-footholds-in-the-incoming-european-commission/

And wider:

• https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154671

But as those same articles highlight voting for climate action is a complex topic. Our economic system often makes the worst option the cheapest and easiest, and green policies, done badly, can sometimes end up penalising those who can least afford it which is why climate change is also an inequalities issue:

• https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/09/climate-change-and-inequality-guivarch-mejean-taconet

These are all things which can only be addressed at a governmental level. People are voting in parties because of their Green credentials but it’s down to the incumbent to act on those promises once elected. Unfortunately organisations such as oil companies have a lot of lobbying power which can dull or redirect green policy. It’s up to the public to ensure that this doesn’t happen by making sure climate change remains in the spotlight, thus making it hard for the government to ignore. Which is what groups like JSO are doing, and why the petrochemical companies are so determine to undermine them.

That last shot of the tail wagging!

The majority of people see climate action as a priority:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/global-surveys-show-peoples-growing-concern-about-climate-change

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to-climate-change-citizens-in-advanced-economies-are-willing-to-alter-how-they-live-and-work/#:~:text=A median of 80%25 across,or no changes at all

https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/report/2023/consumers-care-about-sustainability-and-back-it-up-with-their-wallets/

The reason not everyone is voting accordingly is because political motivation is complex. There’s more things pressing for people’s attention like being able to feed, cloth and home themselves. That’s why addressing societal issues like poverty, inequality etc are part of addressing climate change. We need to free up people’s bandwidth to allow them to concentrate on issues like the climate.

High profile protests like this keep the matter of climate change in the spotlight. They prevent it being brushed under the rug by other events and ensure it remains on the political radar. Maybe you’re right in that if you don’t care about climate change JSO are unlikely to change your mind, but if they help to convert even a handful of people, or at least encourage conversations on the topic that they weren’t having before, that’s a win.

Nicely cherry-picked.

69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.

Lucky JSO are about the former, not the latter.

Evidence suggests that disruptive protests actually help, rather than hinder organisations like JSO:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-radical-activists-benefit-social-movements-history-shows-why-181977

https://theconversation.com/radical-environmentalists-are-fighting-climate-change-so-why-are-they-persecuted-107211

It’s all about raising awareness and facilitating discussions.

Meanwhile petrol companies are doing everything they can to smother protests: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby

Consider who gains the most from perpetuating the idea that JSO are the bad guys…

Remember things like this the next time someone says that groups like JSO don’t work and should stop. I’m convinced that a lot of the negative press around them is driven, at least in part, by the petrol companies to try and turn the public against them.

Lol, get wrecked.