everyone_said

I'd imagine they'd evetually design a jet purpose built for an AI that would be a lot cheaper than a human-oriented one. Removing the need for a cockpit with seats, displays, controls, oxygen, etc would surely reduce cost. It would also open the door for innovations in air-frame design previously impossible.

That may all be true, but the amount of water used by these data centers is miniscule, and it seems odd to focus on it. The article cites Microsoft using 700,000 liters for ChatGPT. In comparison, a single fracking well in the same state might use 350,000,000 liters, and this water is much more contaminated. There are so many other, more substantive, issues with LLMs, why even bring water use up?

Edit: If evaporative cooling uses less energy it might even be reducing total industrial water use, considering just how much water is used in the energy industry.

Meat was sold in wax paper (butcher paper) for years before switching to plastic. Yes, plastic is superior in pretty much every non-environmental aspect, but waxed paper is hardly an impossible leap. Many smaller shops still use it today.

Beer is sold in both cans and glass bottles, while still remaining cheaper than water in many places. How is beer able to remain cheap in a glass bottle but premade soup stock would not? Yes, glass bottle would increase shipping costs due to volume/weight/breakage, but I think the significance of this is greatly overstated.

If beer can stay out of a plastic bottle while remaining cheap the other liquids can as well.

The epoxy used in cans (and inside paper containers) may not be any better for you but it would be a enormous decrease in quantity of plastic compared to pure plastic containers.

Does rdx only support card style view or is there a way to toggle it to classic?

As much as I dislike her and her views, J.K. Rowling would be an example wouldn't she?

Agreeing that a debt exists and agreeing to pay back a debt are two different things. The budget doesn't argue whether the debt exists, just how and when it will be payed back. It is the difference between "Yes, I owe you $100, you'll get it back someday.", and "Yes, I owe you $100, and I've budgeted to pay you $20 a week for the next 5 week until we're square."

The consitution guarantees the first part, but doesn't help much with the second. However, without the second part everything grinds to a halt.

Why do the merchandise sales not count? Are they not a product of her creative writing? Many webnovelists sell merch. One of my favourite webnovelists semi-recently hired an editor, would that disqualify them?

I'm a little confused on how you are defining the conditions. If the artist can only count their personal contributions than I don't think it is possible in any sense. No person no matter how hard working or talented can personally generate a billion in profit.