Public transport won't substitute the need or desire for private cars. Improving public transport's impact will plateau at some point because people will always value the privacy and benefits of using their own private car.
You will never be able to create transport system where people take a bus in front of their door step, to the grocery store and back on demand.
You don't need to take a bus to the grocery store if said grocery store is itself in 5 minute walking distance from your doorstep (or have said groceries delivered)... I buy 90% of my own groceries from one of the 3 stores on my street or using deliveries, only take the bus for the rest, usually max twice per month and then I don't really mind that the bus only comes once in 15 minutes instead of "on demand"...
No, because ChatGPT doesn't understand "concepts". It helps to understand that all it does is take your prompt and generate the most likely words that will satisfy the user. This is how it was trained.
That doesn't mean it won't regurgitate preexisting material (ask it to recount the constitution, for example), but it can definitely connect words in way that describes novel ideas.
It has the capacity to model things behind the words, which is what "understanding concepts" ultimately means. That it is capable of doing so from merely being trained to "predict the next token" is what's remarkable about it.
It raises some questions for me about how far this current model can actually scale / evolve without getting a bit too far out to be useful for human use. But it can (sometimes) connect things in ways that people have likely never seen before.
Maybe if you just clicked the button all day, you'd wind up with some really impressive new games people have never seen before.
If the internet is America the continent, where are lots of humans work, you can call the colonization as a genocide to native americans, or stealing the land with honor.
I did not. I teach at a community college. Having a Ph.D. probably would have hurt me had I gone into private industry as a programmer. So I have been told.
> 20 years ago it was unusual not to have snow for Christmas and New Year.
This is one of those widely spread Mandela effect-style misconceptions.
The chances of a white Christmas in the UK are around 10%, and depending where you are in the US [0], especially if you consider the population density not pictured in that chart, even lower.
Humans generally hugely overestimate how often a white Christmas actually happens due to selection bias.
> The chances of a white Christmas in the UK are around 10%, and depending where you are in the US [0], especially if you consider the population density not pictured in that chart, even lower.
Why do you assume the OP is in the UK or US? We’re discussing climate and weather in the Alps; there are plenty of places in Europe where a white Christmas really was not unusual.
The probabilities in Germany are around 12.5% and around 40% in Switzerland itself [0].
To live anywhere where to quote OP "it [would be] unusual not to have snow for Christmas and New Year" would basically mean living in a skiable country itself, so I did do a lot of assuming there.
But then I don't ski. I wouldn't know if skiers take vacations around the world to see different snow.
What is the purpose of your comment? Do you have a belief that if the global mean temperature were, for instance, raised 3 degrees celsius that this change would not result in noticeable changes in weather? Weather does not affect or result in global warming but global warming does affect and result in weather change.
For all intents and purposes, at our scale both are the same. You have to go back several decades for baseline natural variation to be larger than the human-caused increase in average temperatures.
Weather and weather events are a consequence of a number of factors, a big one of which is climate and change in the latter therefore also drives change in the former.
Example: in my home city the winters have been getting warmer on average pretty drastically.
I'm in my mid-twenties, around the time of my birth the average winter weather YoY was still cold enough to freeze the sound (not the audio one) near my home deep and hard enough anyone could walk nearly the whole width from one bank to the other.
During my early childhood we had ~0.5m of snow nearly all winter but I can't remember having even a "white christmas" since I was ~14.
Even this winter we had like 10-15cm of snow total, most of which melted as soon as hit the ground, a layer of ~5cm stayed for around a week a bit before christmas.
The holidays themself were cold (not freezing) and it rained almost the entire time.
Extremely funny, because for the last fifteen years whenever it got bitterly, unseasonably cold (like in the US last week) - climate deniers would quietly chuckle and be shouted down with screams of "weather is not climate".
Which it's true, it was stupid then to take a cold snap as "climate change is fake lol", but it's also stupid now to take a warm spell as "we are doomed climate chaaange".
Generally I wouldn't characterise the climate change deniers as "quietly chuckling", while the other side was "screaming". But no, neither weird cold snaps or weird heatwaves are climate change. However, increased volatility and unusual variation both ways can indeed be caused by and associated with global warming.
Sure. But this is a pointless thing to complain about.
OP could have given a long, complex nuanced statement to appease pedants like "Due to climate change making warm weather and lack of snow in January far more likely than in the past, there was in fact warm weather and lack of snow during my planned trip, so I had to cancel my plans. The odds of this happening without decades of carbon emissions from fossil fuels would have been very unlikely".
Or, you can skip all that excessive cruft which is understood by almost everyone as being implicit and just say due to climate change.
#/media/File:Probability_of_a_white_Christmas_in_the_United_States_1981-2010.jpg){kind=link}