Nine new reservoirs are planned by 2050 apparently. But as general point reservoirs are...
a) only part of the solution (water reuse schemes can be much cheaper and more effective)
b) really difficult to build! Finding an appropriate location (google the Tryweryn reservoir in Wales for an example of the consequences of building one in a problematic location), planning constraints, environmental impact and subsequent pushback from locals and environment groups etc etc.
Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Surely in most instances it is easier to just bash out the email plus you get the added bonus of exercising your own mind: vocabulary, typing skills, articulating concepts, defining appropriate etiquette. As the years role by I aiming to be more conscious and diligent with my own writing and communication, not less. If one extrapolates on the use of AI for such basic communication, is there a risk some of us lose our ability to meaningfully think for ourselves? The information space of the present day already feels like it is devolving; shorter and shorter content, lack of nuance, reductive messaging. Sling AI in as a mediator for one to one communication too and it feels perilous for social cohesion.
Yes, good points. It's not a wild stretch of the imagination that Mr P and gang are actively trying to drag China into the Ukraine conflict and I'd imagine Beijing is pretty pissed off today about being (ostensibly) implicated in this sabotage. So the usual underhand scheming from the Kremlin imho, don't fall for it. China and Russia's relationship is very complicated of course and there's many a convincingly analysis out there that predicts conflict between them in the near future (an example flashpoint being Siberia).
The article explicitly references donations to the Democrats too btw, the authors overarching point appears to be this idea that the vastly wealthy consider themselves above the state and the rule of law. This is not a new phenomena, history is resplendent with examples of the abundantly rich desiring, obtaining and then exercising absolute power. Spoiler alert: it usually doesn't end well for the populace at large or ultimately themselves. I'd agree with the authors point about the ostensibly short sightedness of Elon et al's seeming desire for a rich absolutism: they are barking up the wrong, unsustainable tree. A well functioning and financially supported democracy is very very good for the economy and good for them! A better provision of public goods, infrastructure and a healthy populace is very very good for business isn't it? Democratic decline also brings with it instability, anti competitive kleptocracy, stagnation, and consumers strapped for cash; not the ideal conditions within which to sell their services. Which makes me wonder: is Elon's current political posturing not really based on any canny reasoning, but just plane old reactive emotional impulse. I really wouldn't be surprised if, as the author suggests, Elon's perceived Biden snub is really a big part of this or at least behind its genesis. Which is a good final point on unchecked power and its pitfalls, who wants to be at the mercy of an individual's emotional petulant whims, compulsions and outbursts? Surely none of us right?
Checking my news feed it is intriguing to see how little exposure Kirkpatrick's statement is getting verses the media frenzy that followed David Grusch and his cohorts outlandish congressional hearing. I guess this is a great example of Kirkpartick's point about the modern media cycle driving stories faster than sound research. Farcical. Surely such time, money and effort could be better spent fixing real tangible problems as opposed to investigating fanciful stories, conjecture and sensationalist nonsense? I can't see any chat here too on HN compared to the debate previously about alien remains etc. This quote from the article stood out for me:
"Members have a responsibility to exhibit critical thinking skills instead of seeking the spotlight. As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded “whistleblowers” in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their “evidence” and statement for the record despite numerous invitations. Anyone that would rather be sensationalist in the public eye than bring their evidence to the one organization established in law with all of the legal process and security framework established to protect them, their privacy, and the information and to investigate and report out findings is suspect"
Good points. I guess a counter is if seemingly 'cast-iron' pledges are put out there for the electorate (such as the scrapping of tuition fees) and people subsequently turn out in big numbers to vote for them (this was the year people were turned away due to large queues forming at the polling stations - obvs not all students voting for Lib Dems but you see my point) it's understandable that people will expect said pledges to be delivered on. The Lib Dem’s flagship political broadcast was titled “Say goodbye to broken promises” for example. The ire is understandable, whether one agrees or not.
Clegg's credibility in the UK is pretty poor due to some well publicised policy u-turns during his tenure in political power, most notable being tuition fees. He went from hero to zero very quickly over there, becoming almost an archetype of the slimey, untrustworthy politician.
a) only part of the solution (water reuse schemes can be much cheaper and more effective) b) really difficult to build! Finding an appropriate location (google the Tryweryn reservoir in Wales for an example of the consequences of building one in a problematic location), planning constraints, environmental impact and subsequent pushback from locals and environment groups etc etc.
I don't disagree the UK needs more of reservoirs but they ain't trivial things to build. A good overview in this news article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k147dkgx8o