Yes this graph makes way more sense. The original graph had no base, age is arbitrary to events over time without a date of birth. So if you were born in 1751 and were 5 years old the original says 11% of all emissions happened in your lifetime. It also say if you were born in 2019 and were 5 years old that 11% of all emissions happened in your lifetime. It has static measurements across time when yearly emissions aren’t static.

It’s more different than better, and by different I mean better

Yes absolutely it can.

Disclaimer: This is based on a gut feeling and no actually knowledge of the topic.

Who cares that’s ages away /s

I think it’s why he drifted right. He couldn’t handle being called out on his bullshit so he needed to find a group of people who wouldn’t question him

As someone who knows nothing about this stuff, yes.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder

Really? Are you serious? It’s used for all sorts of things. None of which I can think of right now.

I ran into your mom

I haven’t no

Probably written by ChatGPT

Libertarians assemble!

Poorly built rocket

He’d keep telling you it’s nearly ready but you have already been waiting for hours.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Make the most of it I guess?

I didn’t no but I gathered that. What I meant was that in the past the images that would have appeared in the documentary would have simply been photoshopped - it’s the deception that the images were real that is the problem. This article, I assume is using the topic of ai to imply something new has happened when it hasn’t

It’s Netflix marketing with ai. If this happened in the past it would just be photoshopped. They’re using buzzwords to get you engaged