In the end it was all because of Eve and that stupid apple, or maybe the snake. Why was there a tree in the first place? Also was it really necessary to make a universe? Now that’s where the trouble really started!

Isn’t “it takes two” couch coop?

IMO the way to prevent such a scenario from happening is not by blocking Meta, but by inviting equally large competitors to join the fediverse. The described tactic can only work if you have close to a monopoly.

Ontkennen van klimaat issues? Linkje?

They’re right though. Top of the line software for certain domains (CAD, photoshop) just doesn’t exist for Linux. As much as I would want it to be.

What if they hadn’t? Would manufacturers keep shipping different plugs for anything that’s sold here? Just curious…

It doesn’t read as if the author is generalizing all Europeans, it reads more as if he’s criticizing European policy. For what it’s worth in his book he’s very critical of Brexit as well.

These EU funding programs are the original reason I came to Switzerland. It would be good to have this back. Research flourishes by collaboration.

Would be it a bit weird to have a community where we’re not posting stuff right?

Reality: most tech workers view it as fairly rated or slightly overrated according to the real data: https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2023/11/2023-11-20-image-3.png

The paper I showed earlier disagrees

I think the use case is not people doing potato study but people that want to lose weight and need to know the amount of calories in the piece of cake that’s offered at the office cafeteria.

It needn’t be exact. A ballpark calorie/sugar that’s 90% accurate would be sufficient. There’s some research that suggests that’s possible: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01082.pdf

Ik vind het maar behoorlijk generaliserend, een hele generatie in een hokje zetten en analyseren vanuit de leunstoel.

Overigens geloof ik niet in het idee dat met eigen acties je klimaatverandering tegen kan gaan ofzo. Dat idee speelt al sinds de jaren negentig “een beter milieu begint bij jezelf”. Wij zijn niet in staat om onze eigen gewoontes structureel tegen de loep te houden, en in plaats daarvan resulteert het in zelfgenoegzaamheid.

No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.11.12-212740/https://www.ft.com/content/8fde56b7-2515-441a-9472-30c8aedcc200
Tbh, the article doesn’t really talk about the headline. Just some history and talk about Elon musk and Twitter. Not a convincing argument about social media in general.

Because you were replying to this statement by OP:

and as societies get richer in material wealth they produce fewer children and have the luxury to pay attention to things like the environment and their impact on it.

In short your source doesn't support your claim, but it does story OP's claim

For crying out loud, Clyde... you need a bunch of science nerds to tell you something this obvious? Fine.

Lol, very first sentence in that source:

Three mechanisms influence the fertility decision of educated women: (1) the relatively higher incomes and thus higher income forgone due to childbearing leads them to want fewer children. [...]

Il y a toujours une grande difference entre les régions sur ce sujet:

On remarque un fort contraste entre la Suisse romande et la Suisse italienne en ce qui concerne l'importance du lieu de naissance. Au Tessin, 34% des personnes interrogées considèrent que le fait d'être né en Suisse est très important pour l'identité, alors que seuls 9% des francophones partagent cette opinion. Avec 21%, la Suisse alémanique se situent entre les deux autres régions linguistiques.

Sci-fi is fictional, Clyde - not prophecy.

They're just referring to the fact that the universe we live in is no "finite system" per the meme

Riiight... that's why we're the most destructive agent on the planet since the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs - because we "do more with less." Wtf?

Yes exactly! They're not saying that's a good thing but that's exactly why!

Which societies, Clyde? The ones that capitalism has impoverished so that a small minority can pretend their privileged lives are (somehow) "normal?"

Regardless if the distribution of that wealth is acceptable, growth has made the overall society richer in material wealth. The distribution of that wealth is an entirely different question.

And that's a good thing, is it? You know we could just achieve that easily by giving women reproductive rights, don't you? As in... no capitalism required at all?

You have any proof for that statement?

Adding to this, "limitless" growth just refers to the idea that it's very hard to reach all limits in our present universe.

I agree that there are more important problems with capitalism than if we've reached a limit or not.