br3d

While I agree we should also be putting in place effective structural interventions, this is a good example of how people are held to a completely different standard of behaviour once they get into a car. Speeding is illegal. Feel free to lobby for that to change, but right now it's against the law. We wouldn't suggest the enforcement of any other crime should be avoided in case it "infuriates" the perpetrators, and speeding should be the same. Motor crime is crime.

It also inadvertently reveals that practically anything is faster than driving in the city too

Back in the Cold War somebody commented how apt it was that if you wanted to call Russia from the UK you have to dial 007

Reform UK seem to be funded by fossil fuel interests, so they'll always promote more driving and less alternatives to driving

Should scale their worries around... once they reach a certain age, given everyone dies eventually. Younger people should worry about those cars and guns. And Americans' baffling tendency to poison themselves, it seems

You're right. I could believe these data might be explained by a lot of businesses being in a "wait and see" phase, hiring conservatively while they see how the AI thing shakes out

Having tried it: choosing an instance is too confusing for a typical user (especially as a minor bit of research suggests there's a risk your instance could disappear at any moment) and there's a culture of policing content and style amongst users that's quite offputting

The article says that it was a Meta chatbot writing this. Nothing to do with Proton

Not working for me in Summit

Air travel is heavily subsidised, especially through very very very favourable tax rates on aviation fuel

What a terrible article. It literally says little more than "I should be able to live how I like no matter what the consequences are for others", as though we haven't had literally centuries of liberal thought showing how you can't run a society that way.

I've only skimmed the abstract, but it makes me think antibiotics aren't effective. I'm basing that on combining two findings that are explicitly stated there: cranberries don't work, and cranberries are no different to antibiotics. Transitive inference would imply that this means antibiotics don't work, although I'm surprised the authors haven't been more explicit about this, given they've left it ambiguous and it seems like an obvious question

Edit: there's slightly more detail at the bottom where it says "Cranberry products were not significantly different to antibiotics for preventing UTIs in three small studies." It looks like cranberries and antibiotics were only compared in a very limited set of studies, so perhaps take the comparison with a pinch of salt