A current pet peeve is the lack of attention being given to the costs of not mitigating climate change - core infrastructure replacement (rail tracks/road surface), flood damage, energy requirements, public health, food security, uninsurable homes and businesses etc. Need to somehow flip argument.
Why prolong suffering? Of what benefit is that? (Yes, safeguards are needed, but the principle of "shall we make this human end their life in excruciating pain?" should not be a hard one to disavow).
I know it is a controversial subject, however, for a number of reasons, some personal, I truly hope that this finally passes. There need to be safeguards obviously, but no-one should be forced to suffer when we have a clear way for them to pass on their own terms. www.bbc.com/news/article...
They will consider proposals to change the law so some terminally ill people can choose to end their life.
(This does assume that your thesis doesn't trash the work of your external or their team ;))
Remember that the examiners want you to pass. It's a discussion of your work, your chosen ways of working and the logical consistency of your output. They also want to make sure it's your own work :). In short, go into it as a challenging discussion rather than a confrontation.
As John Holdren once said about climate change, “We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”
Again I feel compelled to note that when there was a hint that Hillary Clinton had used a private email- which turned out not to actually rise to the level of criminality- the Times published 40+ articles on it in a month.
At the risk of activating all those who say this is meaningless, here’s a UK council election tonight: Marton (Blackpool) Council By-Election Result: ➡️ RFM: 38.8% (+29.3) 🌹 LAB: 28.0% (-23.0) 🌳 CON: 21.3% (-18.2) 🙋 IND: 7.0% (New) 🔶 LDM: 2.8% (New) 🌍 GRN: 2.1% (New) (via Election Maps)
According to reviewers, Boris Johnson’s memoir Unleashed lacks any substance and is packed with dubious “facts”. An accurate reflection, then.
Reminded once again that those who are most against housing refugees are often the most pro creating refugees...
“This decrease in reliability is partly due to changes that made more recent models significantly less likely to say that they don’t know an answer, or to give a reply that doesn’t answer the question. Instead, later models are more likely to confidently generate an incorrect answer.”
Even after language models were scaled up, they proved unreliable on simple tasks