I think part of it is sun exposure, my eyesight is much worse than my close relatives, and I was born in Iceland which has much weaker sunlight.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85825-y

More likely a lack of sun exposure

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85825-y

This is old science.

Increased time outdoors is correlated with a lower risk of myopia. It’s no surprise that more screen time = less time spent outdoors

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85825-y

While yes, the rich are the main problem, the bulk of resistance is the middle class. They don’t want to see the value of their property go down, or see increased traffic. Even though the suggested policy changes would help them too! The brainwashing is strong among people, not just the rich.

It’s also hard, because to make meaningful changes, you need progress in at least 2 of these areas at the same time, which means you need to get people and politicians to agree on how to fix the problem!

I see many people blaming corporate ownership as a problem, and in our current system is it is. But implementing my proposed changes would make it unpalatable for exploitive corporations, without needing to explicitly ban them!

I live in the United States, and as I understand it the housing crisis is caused by several factors.

1. The lowest level of zoning is typically residential single family. This means small scale owners and developers cannot increase supply by taking a house and adding to it. Either by adding extensions, subletting, or even building a mini-apartment building. To add to this, US regulations require apartment units to have access to 2 staircases, in the event of a fire. This is good for safety, but greatly restricts style of apartments to hotel styles, and increases costs, so smaller apartments don’t make as much sense. This requirement should be able to be waved in the case of fire resistant building materials.

2. Speculative land owning. Some property owners simply sit on properties in developing areas, waiting for its price to increase, and since tax is based on the value of the total property (land+building), a decaying building reduces the cost of owning that land. To fix this, we should be taxing the value of the land instead, punishing speculators, while incentivising people to improve their land (by building housing).

3. Overuse of cars. Even when places want to expand housing, the complete and utter reliance on cars as transportation in the US leads to backlash for increasing housing, as the perception is that it will increase traffic. To combat this cities need to rethink their transportation strategies to radically increase things like bus and bike lanes. Even when cities do have buses, the strategy funded by the federal government is abysmal. For example instead of running buses that can hold 15 passengers and run every 15 mins, cities will instead run buses that can hold 50 people every hour, and so these buses run mostly empty with 2-3 passengers.

The main policy changes that we need are less restrictive zoning, tax speculators, and diversify urban transport. But resistance is heavy, many politicians themselves are land holders and do not want to implement these changes, or to anger those that do. Landholders generally have more political voice, power, and wealth.

As someone who checked it out for physics here’s my experience:

Anything that could easily be found and be correct that would be found on chegg, would be easily repeated by chatgpt, and with usually clearer solutions that was easier for slightly different problem prompts.

Anything that could not be well answered by chatgpt likely would not have a good solution on chegg, being either outright wrong, or extremely confusing as an answer.

More like Sony doesn’t want to cannibalize selling their own dedicated Blu-ray players for a much higher profit margin.

A $100 bluray drive, an Ugoos am6, and coreelec can get play everything for way less than a high end bluray player that can cost $1000.

Shame it doesn’t support dolby vision though.

Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.

Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.

While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.

The original question was why solar systems and galaxies are in planes, and your explanation is wrong.

What do you even mean by similar orbits? Most orbits are circular for a totally different reason, and that is tidal interactions.

I hate to be that guy, but this is wrong.

The solar system is mostly in one plane because it formed from a cloud of gas. The cloud of a gas has some total non zero rotation and as the cloud collapses interactions flatten the cloud into a disk, where all of the planets formed.

This same principle applies to galaxies.

No he doesn’t have talking points. He just spouts whatever bs gets him the most attention true or not

I’ve only tangentially heard about this, but another issue is that doctors in the US don’t have to, and aren’t encouraged to keep up with recent research.

Combine that with a medical education system that hasn’t changed drastically in 70 years to keep up with that new research and most US doctors are just out of date.

They’ve had fab problems for years, in that it cost them a ton on money and much longer than desired to shrink nodes, so they’ve fallen from a leader in fab production to being behind.

Not to mention there’s not much money to be made from fabs, unless your tsmc.

AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia, Google, Apple, are all huge tech companies that design their own cutting edge chips, and only Samsung is another company that both designs and produces chips.

. 5% in a swing state is not nothing, could very much make the election in a state like Pennsylvania.

Beans, I hate pretty much everything about beans, taste texture, they look gross and smell gross.

Diversity is important, but it’s still better to go after larger sources of energy first. There’s just not much energy to be recovered from falling rain or waste from cars.

Make the cars waste less energy, or the transit system in general is much easier and will actually save money long term.

The actual paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11100893/

It’s still a preprint, and I didn’t see the exact figure but definitely concerning.

Ehh it’s still a rubbish idea, that money would be much better spent going after primary producers of energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear.

Some napkin math and an equivalent area of solar, say over a road or parking lot would produce 3.5 million kwh in a year.