Asbestos definitely causes inflammation when tissues are exposed to it, I wouldn't recommend that anyone lick asbestos. One exposure wouldn't do much. That said I'm pretty sure the act of picking asbestos up and bringing it to your face and breathing it in would be the most dangerous part of that.

It blows my mind as a non-Amerian that their politicians are saying that the right to own a gun and carry it around is more important than children being able to go-to school without the fear of being killed. That's just the cost of 'freedum'.

Well that was a wild ride of a comment.

Star Trek Voyager

So scientists are not entirely certain about the heat death of the universe. The heat death is the most reasonable prediction given what we know but there could be a force acting across the universe that may very slowly reverse the expansion of the universe that we have yet to discover and cause a big crunch over a ridiculously large amount of time. The fact is predictions that far in the future aren't really very useful.

While there can definitely be some legitimate discussion and ambiguity over which culture/country gets to inherit Mayan artifacts, for example, saying that the British, for example, should inherit it is a very weak argument. It's not like the entirety of an extinct societies people just dropped dead. Some survived and after some time rebuilt new societies. Using Mayan artifacts as an example, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras have a better claim to them then the British. It's not propaganda or useless to say that items of cultural heritage should be returned.

So how about this what about-ism, if you live in the United States, the British took cultural artifacts from your lands too and aren't giving them back right this moment. Where did you think all those native American artifacts in British museums came from? They didn't make them and it's not like North America was spared from British plundering. Might be nice to get that stuff back.

¿Por qué no los dos?

There is no moral grounds for stealing cultural artifacts. Even if it means the culture that rightfully possesses it wants to destroy it. That choice is entirely that cultures decision to make. Even if we disagree. It's one thing to clutch your own pearls but so much worse to do that to someone else's.

I'm as frustrated as the next person here when it comes to how AI is crammed into products, but translation between languages is one of the few things AI can be good at. A lot gets lost in translation, sure, but everything is lost when it's not translated at all. Are we expected to have official translaters for everything? I use it most often translating explanations of how to fix a chunk of code. Someone else solved the problem except that it's not in a language I understand, one quick AI translation and I can understand what their solution was and deploy it myself. I couldn't do that ten years ago. Most AI is hot garbage but I find translation AI very useful.

Technically 1 out of 1 people who undergo that procedure die, eventually. Same is true for people who elect not to have the procedure done, eventually.

You are technically correct, e-mails aren't judicially approved. They are hearsay, a statement made outside of court. They absolutely can be used as evidence. Lionel Hutz was on the money when he said that 'hearsay is a kind of evidence'. Depending on the hearsay it can be quite strong evidence. That evidence can be used to make a testimony and that is judicially approved. There is strong hearsay, such as a series of emails which details the crime, and there is weak hearsay, like 'everyone knows Joe did it'. One of those examples of hearsay you can take to court, the other, well you can take what everyone is saying to court but it won't get you very far.