Under international law, countries have complete and exclusive sovereignty over this airspace, just as they do over their land. They aren’t “taking someone else’s rain” because the clouds they’re seeding are effectively theirs anyway
Less rain than you'd imagine falls on the oceans, due to the land having varying elevation and temperature, whilst the oceans have far more constant elevation and temperature so the conditions needed for rain happen less.
My understanding is that cloud seeding has been going on for quite a while over Texas and the rest of the southern Plains.
It's hidden in plain sight, and the only people who ever seem to talk about it are total wingnuts who also believe things like climate change is real but manufactured by the US and other world power militaries (using secret technology) for geopolitical purposes, often conflating real cloud seeding with variations on the classic chemtrails conspiracy theory.
It's a largely unregulated continent scale weather and climate modification experiment. I haven't booked too deep into the research on it, but because powerful agricultural interests are involved, I'm sure nobody is looking too closely at externalities and would prefer to keep it that way.
Archival sites could let you download cryptographically signed copies of the archived pages. If they get removed from the archival site, the authenticity of your local copies can still be attested.
Storage media and authenticity have zero overlap in the venn diagram. Authenticity is a cryptological feature of the internet, not a topological one.
The reason you believe that you're reading something on news.ycombinator.com right now is not the path by which the bytes were copied from one interface to the next before getting to you, but the certificate and signature that confirms you have a valid HTTPS connection.
>>> (As if first time mothers didn’t have enough to worry about - stop stressing so much, it could lead to long-lasting irreversible changes to your fetus!)
This is plainly not plausible. "Irreversible" doesn't play well with the length of time humans have been a thing.
Ask a parent what they hear when they hear “irreversible” in conjunction with their child. I promise nobody mistook that for “until the heat death of the universe,” but I can add a note if you really think it’s warranted.
But even reversible changes aren’t always “reversed”. They aren’t necessarily minor.
Sure, breaking an arm or skipping high school can be a “reversible” change. But not often not fully “reversed” and/or not done so in a negligible time frame. There are costs. Seems like biological development could be similar.
Even if this was going to hold up, it wouldn't make the policies that Lamarck's ideas were designed to promote work. We already empirically know they don't work.
It’s also a good argument for not allowing children to be victims of their parents’ circumstances. Which is the heart of compulsory schooling and school lunch and a whole host of other things.
Maybe someone could have just came up with in a vacuum, but it looks like a response to other attempts to restrict AI by saying that models trained with more than X amount of compute resources have to follow tons of extra rules.
And, per the article, the group pushing this is AI and blockchain companies.
There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilian "administrative detainees" who would love to know why you're not as concerned about them being held.
It's a way to take someone else's rain.