Combining your source with this https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Well i wasnt wrong in the assumption that AI is absolutely dwarfed by other industries, agriculture and energy production, but it is in the top 10, on the same level as aviation (so like place 9)
While the environmental impact of AI is absolutely horrible I don't think it is even in the top 10 of industries. Meat production, Transportation by cars, Airplanes, plastic products etc are all much worse.
The problem is AI is absolutely useless for how big its climate impact is. The other industries at least provide value.
I asked why the am/pm system is apparently more convenient and consistent than the 24h system. I didn't ask about 24h in a day and 60min in an hour.
What functional difference is there between tne 12 and 24 hour clock?
You need 2 numbers and 2 letters to accurately specify time in the 12h clock instead of just 2 numbers. Seems convenient to me.
less convenience and consistency
What? ... seriously, which convenience and consistency are you talking about.
24h only has one "inconsistency", going from 23:59 to 0:00. How is that less consistent than 12am being after 11:59pm and 12pm being after 11:59am. Solves all parts of the issue except for one. Which is a lot better than the 12h system.
There is absolutely a point to shaming and boycotting everyone who acts negatively in public. Of course beeing a secret scumbag is also bad but it doesn't promote scumbaggery to other. A quiet ass does less damage than a loud one.
There is no probability. No rolling dice. It is every combination of everything. I know Hilberts infinite hotel, I know (enough about) probability and statistics.
I am talking about the multiverse that many people imagine. The one where you can say "there is a universe in which I am president. And one where Lincoln is a velociraptor, and a universe where chairs sit on people instead of the other way round". In that multiverse, I can construct a universe without triangles that is identical to another universe with triangles in every regard except for the existence of triangles. And I can do that for every universe with triangles. Its a bijection.
We dont permute a (in)finite set of initial parameters and then evolve the universe from there, we have a universe for every CURRENT state.
In the hypothetical reality where such a multiverse exists (it would be a case of Russells paradox as OP has discovered), there is a 50% chance to be in a universe where it doesn't.
Standards are used to increase interoperability between systems. The more different standards a single system needs the harder it is to interface with other systems. If you have to define a list of 50 standard you use, chances are the other system uses a different standard for at least one of them. Much easier if you rely on only a handful instead
I think it is reasonable to say: "for all representation of times (points in time, intervals and sets of points or intervals etc) we follow the same standard".
The alternative would be using one standard for points in time, another for intervals, another for time differences, another for changes to a timezone, another for ...
I know. But I case of the multiverse that many people think about, the one where there is a universe for EVERYTHING, there will be exactly as many universes where triangles exist as there are universes where triangles dont exist. And the same is true for everything else.
And it is exactly the same number, not just the same type of infinity. Because for every universe with triangles there must also exist the exact same universe without triangles (and vice versa), otherwise the multiverse wouldn't contain all possible universes.
That is true for a lot of places though. The ISS is only ~400 kilometres from the earth. Unless you are on a shipping lane (or close to a shore), most places on the ocean will be more than 400km from other people. Also many places in the sahara, Atacama, Gobi desert, Siberia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland ...
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the "multiverse of all possibilities" there will be 50% without a multiverse
I dont think citizen kane is worth watching just as a movie today. It was a pioneer in its day but what was revolutionary then is just standard now.
If you watch it now it's just a realy old movie unless you are a film historian and know the context from which it was made.