MonkRome

Most Jews don't live in Israel. 18 million Jews, 7 million live in Israel. The way you framed your comment doesn't really make sense. You're talking about Israelis, not Jews as a whole.

There are 5 classified levels of automation. At the lower levels of automation, the very article you are responding to quotes this evidence for you. Here is another article that gets deeper into it, I haven't read it all so feel free to draw your own conclusions, but this data has been available and well reported on for many years. https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/autonomous-vehicle-safety-statistics.html

They only have to work better and more consistently than humans to be a net positive. Which I believe most of these systems already do by a wide margin. Psychologically it's harder to accept a mistake from technology than it is from a human because the lack of control, but if the goal is to save lives, these safety systems accomplish that.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gas

Depends on what you mean by that. I'm not a linguist, but I've heard a lot of them speak, so I hope someone more qualified will correct me where I am wrong.

At an early age language needs to be taught in it's present localized state to give a base structure for learning. With that language learning we need to teach structure of language locally and also more generally. Later in their learning, if we taught everyone in society the reality that linguists already know, that language changes and evolves over time and place, and teach language basics like how language itself works, we see better outcomes. The worst outcomes we see in language learning is when we teach only rote memorization of sounds, spelling, and rigid grammar. We can still teach that stuff, but it needs to be taught along side general language structures, language theory, and an understanding of practical realities to see better outcomes.

Whatever we do, language will always change rapidly over time. It's better to teach in a way that prepares people for the fluidity of language, than to teach people only the rigid structures that will inevitably change.

Language is largely not prescriptive, no matter how much people want it to be. Prescriptivism is like holding your hand out to stop a river, it completely misunderstands how language flows over time.

Disinformation causes people to believe and spread misinformation. It's often hard to tell who is being deliberate and who is an idiot, especially with so many idiots on the public stage and so much societal mass mental illness.

Ha, I was just being snarky. I've never liked the few parts of Ohio I've been at, but I'm guessing there are some good places there.

Not living in Ohio is worth at least $1k a month, so that tracks.

Lakes and rivers still have otters and beavers, etc. Not huge biomass but still relevant. Oceans have all sorts of mammals, most of the largest ocean creatures. Only 30% of land is inhabited by humans and our agriculture but land and freshwater is only 29% of earth and 71% of earth is oceans. 30% of 29% is like 8.5%. Once you start factoring in how little of the earth we actually inhabit or our agriculture, it is pretty surprising how heavily we dominate the mammal kingdom.

This is surprising to me, I grew up in a rural area where deer far outnumbered people. Also you'd think despite their small size the sheer number of rodents in the wild would increase the biomass by more than that. There are large amounts of the earth that is still uninhabited by humans, in mountains, cold climates, islands and keys, oceans, lakes, etc. I'm sure the scientists are right, I'm just shocked.

And a way of renormalizing misogyny.