Yes, it is going away from Swissness.

Why leave out crime, corruption, and dictatorships made by their own people?

Siberia in Russia, Northern Canada are huge and sparsely populated. Yet there is no migration to these areas. Why? Because current migrant crisis is all about economic migration and not climate migration.

What banking has to do with immigration? Are you trying to argue that countries with successful central banks are not allowed to control migration? If that is your argument, what level of inflation is acceptable while still maintaining borders? 5%? 10%? 100%?

Central banking is not unique to Switzerland, Zimbabwe had the same ability to issue unlimited currency (and they did exactly that multiple times).

So according to you, when Switzerland natives want to keep their country it is eugenics, but when the very same people move elsewhere they become vile colonizers. Why such double-standard?

This is further automation of QA (testing) and not development (coding). QA automation is nothing new, AI is just a new necessary tool.

To put it differently, the "compiled and run it once" bar have been raised.

Sure. The attacker is now out of some CPU time and bandwidth. Unlike previously, where attacker's time would've been wasted.

There are some efforts to automate vulnerability tracking, like incorporating SBOM tools into QA process, but largely this is still done manually. Which means that AI's throughput will simply overwhelm all existing manual system until everyone catches up on automation. I expect we will see 100-long exploit chains of trivial vulnerabilities, I expect we will see AI getting integrated with fuzzing, I expect we will see longstanding low-level protocols exploited in novel ways.

There is no way anyone but a non-techie boomer would get a cable when you can stream or pirate.

Regulation tends to be the most expensive option. You can look at Canada and dairy supply management - better milk, more stable income for existing farmers, but it is very expensive for consumers. That is the best case scenario.

I am not a rancher, so what I say may be not accurate. The meaning of this ask is to drastically reduce the size of free roaming herd OR switch to feedlot. To dangerously oversimplify the issue - feedlot is bad for the animals, meat quality, and the environment. Pasture raised beef has minimal impact of the environment and is better beef and healthier cows. So yes, I am against what is being asked in the first link.

These examples were illustrative, as a reply to a troll accusing me of inventing things

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction in anything I said.

This is fair criticism. However, based on my subjective experience observing various environmentalism causes I am simply unwilling to extend such courtesy. I am not going to try to look for unstated meanings and alternative interpretations. I do try to resist categorically dismissing them as green-washing rent seekers, but that is the extend of my mental effort.

Reputation destruction only works if your target cares what others think about them.

My view is that cattle has minimal deleterious environmental effects, none if they are pasture raised. Steel industry has minimal and it is acceptable considering how necessary steel is.

Car culture does have harmful effects that are getting reduced with improved technology. Cars are necessary for a free society to exist. Without cars, government would have much bigger role and say in our lives.

Yes it is, but effects of warming are not as dire and not as immediate as predicted. Also, climate change is a net of natural systems (Milankovitch cycles, etc.) and anthoropogenic, what percentage which is not settled science. It is also certainly not 100% anthropogenic.

No, we need environmental groups with better values. Human-centric. Capable of cost vs. benefit analysis.

You misunderstood. I am opposed to all these environmental groups because I disagree with how they frame problems. My desire for clean environment is of "no smog or toxins" kind and not at all of "unspoiled mother earth" kind they have.

This retraction makes it easier to litigate, because expert witnesses no longer can cite this paper and have ironclad defense.