If the Supremes overturn Roe vs Wade they will lose all of the legitimacy they’ve spent the last 70 years building.
At that point the Court itself is fubar. It probably already is fubar since Trump anyway. Clarence Thomas and his wife’s Jan 6th involvement is just the cherry on top of a shit show.
In the end they are falliable humans like the rest of us so perhaps we hold too high an opinion.
The fact that liberals peg their views of the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” on a cluster fuck of an opinion as Roe v. Wade speaks volumes.
Roe is so bad that it has long united libertarian conservatives (who hate it because it makes up a right out of thin air) and social conservatives (who had abortion on the merits).
In addition to that it manages to be wildly out of line with international norms, which:
1) Generally recognize abortion as an issue for the legislature.
2) Typically draw the line for elective abortions at the end of the first trimester, not viability. The abortion laws in Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain would be unconstitutional under Roe.
Those two examples are literally written down as amendments to the Constitution itself. If France or Germany wanted to amend theirs to reflect free speech and the right to bear arms,, they are free to do so. Likewise, if the Untied States wishes to enshrine a right to abortion analogous to free speech and arms bearing, it is also free to do so.
I'm not following how you think these are comparable.
I think I've actually asked you something like this before, but is there a compact way to write a constitutional amendment that creates a right to privacy?
I think you might be confusing herbicides and pesticides.
Some GMO crops can lead to less pesticide usage as the plants can sometimes be engineered to be resistant to the pests targeted.
Weed plants don't generally attack the crop plant directly, instead they merely grow nearby and compete for various resources that the crops would otherwise be able to use.
GMO crops can be engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides. This leads to more of that herbicide (generally glyphosate) being used, since more herbicide = fewer weeds, and amounts of glyphosate that would kill non-GMO crops are tolerated by GMO crops.
I look at research. And in this case, it contradicts your claim.
"A steady, linear trend for increasing number of herbicide area-treatments over the last 25 years was observed for all crops except soybean. The linear trend was not statistically significant for soybean [...]"
That's a misreading of the paragraph. The specific claim is that non-glyphosate herbicide use is increasing faster than glyphosate herbicide use.
Later on, in the conclusion section, the researchers acknowledge that farming is generally a complex system with many reasons for doing things, but nevertheless point fingers at herbicide-resistant GM crops in general (not roundup-ready in particular) as a reason for increasing herbicide usage.
> Some researchers have blamed glyphosate-resistant crops and the resulting evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds for increasing herbicide use in maize, soybean, and cotton2,6. While this explanation is plausible for these three glyphosate-resistant crops, it cannot explain the similar trends for increasing herbicide intensity in rice and wheat, since no glyphosate-resistant cultivars are commercially available for those crops. In fact, herbicide area-treatments increased at a faster rate in rice and wheat compared with the glyphosate-resistant crops, so the claim that glyphosate-resistant crops are the primary driver of increasing herbicide use is at odds with the empirical data. The broader problem of herbicide-resistant weeds (rather than the artificially narrow focus on glyphosate) may certainly have played a role in increasing herbicide use for all of the crops in this analysis. The most likely explanation, though, is probably a combination of inter-related factors and is far more complex than any single driver.
To recap, you contradicted drewmal above, who said:
> it leads to loads of herbicide usage (glyphosate). The process of desiccation also leads to loads of glyphosate being used just prior to harvest, on non ‘Roundup Ready’ (glyphosate resistant) crops
You replied "Ummm no, less herbicide actually".
The Nature study you claimed supported your assertion said herbicide usage was steadily up, and more was used on non-roundup-ready crops.
I don't know if you meant "no" to reply to one or the other of those claims or both, but it doesn't matter because they both agree with drewmal.
Care to elaborate? Roundup ready crops have glyphosate resistance which allows for broad application of the herbicide on a field to kill off unwanted other crops, weeds, while not harming the crops with genetically engineered resistance. Otherwise, the application of herbicide would need to be targeted to only the unwanted plants, which is a more labor intensive process. Unless I’m misunderstanding something?
It is a strange hill to decide to die on. Even if you are the expert in the area, AI is weird and changing the world.
Most Nature papers have something wrong with them. I don't see any reason that reinforcement learning cannot learn the best layouts or what not. I don't know the space though enough to say more than that.
The NYTimes article alleges that he waged a misinformation campaign against two researchers. So there's that in the mix as well.
They can fire him for whatever reason they like, but preventing the publication of a paper should not be a corporate policy decision. The only question they should ask is if it reveals trade secrets, which I assume it wouldn't because it was a response to another paper from Google. The whole scientific process thing is the part intended to decide if it's meaningful or not.
That AI is weird and changing the world is why the science shouldn't be held up on the question of whether it embarrasses the company.
Checks a box that outside regulators can look at. Otherwise outside regulators would likely try to investigate and regulate. Also Google's own research can be used to counteract AI ethics claims that are existential to Google. These are
likely going to be Big Data type claims. Big ominous future threats like the GDPR for example.
We know the oil and gas industry produce copious amounts of CO2 causes global warming -- they knew because they funded the research. But publicly their position was "uncertainty".
