Type I diabetes your immune system destroys your insulin producing cells. You need to provided all of your insulin via injection/pump.
Type II diabetes is more akin to insulin resistance / inability to produce the correct amount of insulin. (It is more subtle then this in reality). Type II diabetes is tied to levels of activity and food (esp high sugar) intake.
In Type I diabetes, there is usually a genetic component as well as an environment event which causes the unfortunate autoimmune response. This article is talking specifically about a significant uptick in Type I diabetes cases.
Many children likely have a predisposition to developing diabetes, but they don't due to good diet and exercise. Take that away, and you'll see a significant rise in childhood diabetes. I'm not saying this is the sole cause of all these cases, but it also seems like a glaringly obvious omission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression_picture_type...
I understand building a language and compiler is hard. However, D is over 20 years old at this point. It's had plenty of time to mature despite being a small community project. There are much younger languages which are far more stable. Minor releases should not be introducing so many breaking changes, breaking backwards compatibility. D is actually a pretty nice language, has a lot of great features, but I would never recommend it to anybody.
Nothing that interesting; 2D game engine Construct moved to WebGPU, and reaps some obvious performance benefits. Great.
You might find this older post more interesting, more technical. Just keep in mind this blog post is 3 years old:
https://www.construct.net/en/blogs/ashleys-blog-2/webgl-webg...
But I have another theory. Maybe the ecosystem isn't doing all that well. It just appears so in comparison with conditions when human activity dominated. Compared to an uncontaminated, undisturbed ecosystem, it's just doing so-so. The theory being that the presence of human activity is worse for ecosystems than low-level radiation. James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. [1] That implicitly suggests that a little radiation is better for wildlife than human presence, at least according to Lovelock.
1 https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/
> James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them.
Interesting thought, but would be a horrible thing to do to the indigenous peoples of the rain forests.