Where do you have the 3000 L of water for 1 kg almonds from? It is not in that paper. I read about 10000-15000L per kg almonds (here: https://berlin.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/oekologisch-leben/essen-und-trinken/32632.html) but that was admittedly not a scientific publication.

Just because datacenters are terrible with questionable use, doesn’t mean that combustion engine cars aren’t really bad either. Especially in urban areas traffic is causing a massive decrease in air quality and as a consequence are certainly the cause for respiratorial issues. It can’t happen soon enough to relegate these cars into museums. But of course, EVs are just solving the engine emission problem, they don’t solvbe all the other issues cars bring with them.

“Number of taxes” is such a meaningless index it is impressive.

According to the numbers I found above, almond is pretty comparable to meat production in terms of water intensity. The only thing saving it is that there is a lot less almond production than meat production.

If I look at German sources almonds and beef/pork have the following overall water demand for 1 kg product:

Almonds: 10000-15000 L/kg, beef: 15400 L/kg, pork needs apparently half of beef

That does not necessarily sound like “less than meat”. Granted almonds are among the most water consuming plants. Potatoes need only 290 L/kg.

https://berlin.nabu.de/umwelt-und-ressourcen/oekologisch-leben/essen-und-trinken/32632.html https://www.landwirtschaft.de/umwelt/natur/wasser/wasserfussabdruck-wie-viel-wasser-steckt-in-landwirtschaftlichen-produkten

Telepolis gibt es noch immer? Ich habe aufgehört das zu lesen als man bei vielen Artikeln keinen Unterschied mehr zu Sputnik und RT erkennen konnte.

And none of them are differentiating the local non-immigrant population into white and black groups, are they?

I was maybe not clear about it, by non-US source I was talking about historical studies and works not done by US Americans. So, no need to tell me that the US did not exist in the 17th century. Studying “whiteness” is a very US American thing, and the easiest way to prevent such bias is to look at work from elsewhere. But let’s take that Michigan/North Carolinian anthropologisat for a second. What you describe there is purely external, concerning colonies, not the homeland.

From what you describe it does not appear, that even in Italy, people were classifying people as white and non-white amont the domestic, non-immigrant population. Not in the 17th century. Now, in the 19th century of course you have the rise of modern racism but even in those works you quote it sounds like they were not separating local non-immigrant population of Italian speaking regions into populated by white and non-white.

Can you point me to a non-US source showing that Italians (or rather people from the area of modern day Italy) were debating or thinking about concepts like “whiteness” in the 17th century? (Or really at any time). I am really curious where those debates among members of a country or realm were using that as a category in discussions or considerations.

But they are not of those noble Saxon roots, are they? As we all know the miraculously only white complexion among all those swarthy German tribes. That is because that would be awkward if they hadn’t been, given that they were a key group forming the English master race I suppose. The only truly white people on earth. /s

Maybe it is like with Italians. Bovino should know, I assume.

Given that Bovino commited his crimes in the US, the ICC has no mandate. Unless, you know of crimes he committed in Mexico or Canada. That would change things and might make it a matter for the ICC.

Should have Portugal denied entry? Maybe but I guess people just don’t care enough about some random failure like Bovino.

Those aren’t full prices though. You are aware of that, aren’t you? Nor are the current “full API” prices necessarily truly enough to cover full costs. It is not unlikely that even those are far away from profitability. If they weren’t, why all the financial gymnastics?

The real costs will only be known after the bubble bursts and the venture capital billions are going to dry up and the whole circular financing schemes are falling apart that are massively distorting numbers.

If the current subsidised rates are a good deal for you, nothing wrong with that. Just don’t make decisions that are binding you to what is doomed to explode in prices in the foreseeable future. Also, if all that productive is going through the roof with AI, why is software generally getting worse and buggier. Are all those big tech companies getting suddenly more incompetent, just when they are all moving to processes that are heavily using LLMs?

The craziest thing is this international movement of nationalist xenophobes. I wonder if Bovino conflates Portuguese with Hispanics.

The AI bubble can’t burst soon enough but can anyone tell me how it is even possibly to burn that much money, at current token rates in a single month? How much inference would that be? Was that a huge customer with a lot of users or did they go bonkers with “claw”-stuff to exponentially increase their capacity to burn money in a bonfire?

“Gleichschaltung”. Look it up if you don’t know.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. But there are good first steps. Hungary is finally going to join the EPPO (the European Public Prosecuter Office) framework, one of the last member states to do so. This is a step that is changing the game lastingly and makes domestic corruption much less cozy, at least when EU money is involved.

PS: The only other member states outside of the competence of EPPO will be then Ireland and Denmark, both having general judicary opt outs, so are special cases.

My thoughts. All other issues aside, this sounds like a huge, unnercessary, attack vector.

Locking down access for everyone not using US based services, should be illegal for sites (also) intended for the European market, quite frankly.

A headline on European foreign policy assumes you have basic knowledge on that topic. If you have never heard of Kallas you don’t know one of the top figures of the EU and the one in charge of the EU’s foreign policy. Many don’t, but they are equally clueless. For those readers it is explained in the article. Do we also have to explain who VdL is in a headline?