The messaging of this article is causing people in this very comment section to conclude that climate change is progressing slower (or even not progressing at all) based on a revision of a plant CO2 uptake study that was done in the 1980s.
Like it or not climate science is extremely political and selectively reported science (which this is) that is presented to the public needs to account for the context in which it exists or it is no better than propaganda. The fact that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is primarily funded by the US Department of Energy is plenty of reason to be suspicious of its motivations. They have a vested interest in shaping the public's perception of energy production and its impact on the climate.
Yes, this specific messaging feels motivated by the bottom lines of energy producers. The information doesn't actually change what we've measured regarding progress of climate change, but it's vague enough that plenty of people in the comments here are confused and acting like climate change isn't real after all.
What are the "aesthetics of gambling"? Do all games involving dice rolls resemble that aesthetic? If gambling aesthetics change to resemble popular game aesthetics, does that expand the list of games you'll ban?
> I definitely heard it used to literally mean only the kernel. Circa 20 years ago and earlier.
You're correct that people have been conflating the kernel and the operating system as the same thing for a long time, but it's not technically correct to call "Linux", for example, an operating system. Stallman would appreciate that people stop doing that ;)