GreyEyedGhost

Best reason, and a legitimate reason to not listen to anything. What exactly is the point of consuming art you don't enjoy?

Well, there's nothing stopping Poilievre and his wife from selling the rental properties they own, which should help remove some conflict of interest they may have in this issue which is so important to many Canadians, and he doesn't even have to get the approval of anyone but his wife to make it happen (and that only for one of them).

So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?

Without even knowing this, I knew "intimate and embarrassing" was referring to money.

I don't know how Carney was managing his investments previously, and switching to a different fund has the same issues I raised before, but ask yourself this question. How is this more relevant for Carney than all the other politicians, and why are these demands being made of only him? I'm don't have a problem with limits on how politicians invest, but I expect the investment advantages are similar for most politicians at a given level of politics, especially for the senior politicians. So why is Poilievre banging on this drum, and not broader anti-corruption measures?

Rather than having a fire sale (selling all investments, which implies in the short term), the trustee sells and buys investments as he sees fit without consulting the owner. It's just Poilievre adding a step that seems obvious to the ignorant and harms the person he's attacking.

And yet, look in the comments and you will see people literally saying the examples you gave from the 50s aren't true AI. Granted, those aren't technical experts.

AI is kind of like Scotsmen. It's hard to find a true one, and every time you think you have, the goalposts get moved.

Now, AI is hard, both to make and to define. As for what is sometimes called AGI (artificial general intelligence), I don't think we've come close at this point.

Yes, and it doesn't actually matter. The anti-particle will then at some point hit a regular particle of the same type and release energy instead, leaving the universe with more energy which came from the black hole and the destroyed particle.

Realistically, the time for nuclear (fission) has past. If we were in the 50s or 60s, and were making a concerted effort to remove fossil fuel energy production, nuclear could have helped us do it. Now, with steadily decreasing renewable energy costs and cheaper and more effective battery storage, it's a break-even option at best, and takes a long time to implement.

Fusion has a real chance, provided we can figure it out well enough to do anything with it. It may not be economically viable, and it's hard to be certain before we actually get it working. Fusion could also be more effective for certain space missions, especially to the gas giants and farther from the sun. Realistically, anything closer than Mars does pretty well with solar.

Yeah, there's no waste from coal plants...if you don't count the damage from mining, the storage and spills of fly ash, or the carbon and radioactive material emitted into the atmosphere. Except for those, and the deaths they cause, coal could be the cleanest fuel source out there...instead of one of the most polluting.

In fact, sodium batteries seem to be taking off and the only downside they have compared to lithium batteries is energy density, which isn't a problem for grid storage.