throwawaylinux

Would you trust Google for anything political?

You mean that's not what you previously misrepresented my position to be.

I don't think this is relevant or a good counter argument,

I think it is. It's a pretty weak "argument" to begin with, more like just an assertion that it's wrong (because it's wrong).

we could easily say that both scenarios are less than ideal? Being born into poverty at least means you might have options in life like, you might actually meet enough people to find someone who you actually want to procreate with? What's that going to look like being stuck in what is esentially a small shopping mall your whole life?

In terms of the number of people you would meet? Well it would look like almost everybody for the entire history of humanity.

Imposing morals? Trolling?

I don't understand your question. Do you not believe that "they should have access to basic things such as to be able to experience the natural world" is imposing your own morals on the procreation of others?

No but they should have access to basic things such as to be able to experience the natural world. It would be pretty fucking depressing if you were born into a shitty spaceship and told your job is to pro-create so the next generation can experience something fun?

That's your assertion. Billions of people have been porn into abject poverty and disease and without hope for better, have learned (and in many ways seen and experienced) much less than these space travelers would. Unless we're going the forced sterilization and eugenics kind of route, I'm not sure how it's consistent to impose your own morals and standards onto others' procreation.

Nobody born has signed up for anything.

That people don't have to be miserable with greed and envy of people who have more than they do? It's a very common and socially acceptable opinion actually.

It will be great to see the collapse of the EU as well, which seems to be further along than USA.

I'd love to help but I'm not sure what words you're struggling with. "Could", perhaps? Or is it just the hypothetical nature of the question and answer that is not talking about a specific person's complete life situation, but responding to someone moaning about how terrible life is because "the rich guys", that bypassed you?

You know it's time to take a break from the internet when you get so upset that you start with the keyboard tough guy shtick. Hope you feel better soon.

And if that's all that's preventing it then it is an actual matchup.

It does not. I obviously did not say or imply that everybody can be happy with what they have.

People who have more than you existing doesn't have to be a reason that you're unhappy though.

I'd imagine America would be the last place China would invade, so I would be surprised if they'd bother. The closest (western) scenario I could see them training for is Australia.

If that’s fed into the neural net, I don’t this is an actual matchup.

I think it is an actual matchup. Is there a prohibition against the human pilot from riding in the aircraft to improve latency?

Apple invested in them for a chip for Newton, not for the ARM architecture in particular. Apple was creating their own PowerPC architcture around this time, and they sold their share of ARM when they gave up on Newton.

The PA Semi purchase and redirection of their team from PowerPC to ARM was completely different and obviously signaled they were all in on ARM, like their earlier ARM/Newton stuff did not.

Apple has been investing directly in mobile processors since they bought a stake in ARM for the Newton. Then later they heavily invested in PortalPlayer, the designer of the iPod SoCs.

Not this heavily. They bought an entire CPU design and implementation team (PA Semi).

So Japan's dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean might just be one of the greatest things ever done for marine life.

This could be the first time in history that the "green" / petroleum alliance's anti-nuclear FUD has ever had a positive outcome for the environment.

I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment.

I don't think I estimated it anywhere, so I don't think I am. And in fact I was not just talking about CO2 emissions and climate change, to the contrary I explicitly said actually that climate change is one of a long, long, long list of massive environmental problems we're facing. That's the thing, even if we do "solve" climate change somehow, we're not remotely in the clear.

Reducing (or just not growing) population makes everything easier. CO2 emissions. Land required for food, lithium and other minerals and metals required for cars and computers and batteries and buildings, farming and housing footprint, clean water. Everything. No other measure is as staggeringly effective in reducing the human footprint on the environment as not increasing population.

It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much!

It's compounding and it certainly is an issue. US CO2 emissions peaked 50 years ago if population was stable.

No to the notion that it was a "non-comparative example" of hunter-gatherers killing for pure survival.

I'm not quite sure what MAGA and similar is, or really concerned about the power or influence the lunatic fringe might weild. High level "experts" and "officials" from neoliberal economic and political institutions like the the IMF have been saying these things for a long time.

And it seems to be often times very pro-climate action positions that take this contradictory position that population must continue to increase. I don't know what to make of that other than either they don't really care about climate change, or they want commoners to have a dwindling piece of the pie while the top end continues to get richer, but either way they don't seem to really care about environmental impact of humans.

I thought I did the opposite of ignore it, which was to address it directly. I acknowledged it was a difficult thing to deal with but that almost all countries will have to soon anyway, and I also also rejected the assertion that it is the "true" problem.

Japan has PPP per capita income more than twice as high as China, 5x India. The idea it can't possibly pay more to take care of its elderly and infirm otherwise its society will collapse is up there with the most ludicrous wall street craziness I've ever heard. And they've already been ousted as shysters, mind you, because they've been repeating the same thing for a generation now. Because what they are really scared of as I said is people waking up to the fact that their pyramid scheme isn't the only way to do things.

Seems to me that by the time we reach a global crunch, countries like Japan that will already be a generation or two into addressing this problem and restructuring their societies and economies to cope without ever increasing population will be in a far better position than those continuing to push unsustainable growth to defer the inevitable.

Ah, good point. In that case expand the niche cases to traveling due north or south.

I'm not "romanticizing" anything. I think you are just repeating talking points that have never really been challenged and made to stand up to scrutiny.

They have a massively ageing population, which is the true problem.

The true problem is exponential growth resulting in exponential destruction of the environment, no matter how much you fiddle with the factors. People act like if we (by some unlikely miracle) get a handle on CO2 emissions that it will all be smooth sailing from then on. The sad reality is that pollution, destruction of species and habitat, and depletion of non-renewable resources, until now has been driven almost entirely by factors other than climate change.

In 2060, over 40% of the population will be pensioners requiring payouts, according to the japanese health ministry.

That sounds good, good thing they have been transitioning to a sustainable society and economy rather than stacking the pyramid ever higher to delay the inevitable. You know global population is expected to level by that time then fall, right?

And yes, they have low birth rates and no population growth (whether via immigration or otherwise). This is actually going to bite them at some point.

This is what the pyramid schemers (the "experts", the banks, the billionaires, the neolibs) have been crying wolf about for decades. Sure it isn't simple, but they are managing it. And it will bite everybody pretty soon. What would be nice is if, when it bites, we haven't driven societies and the environment to the absolute limit into a brick wall before that, but instead let populations in highly consuming countries naturally peak and decline, and manage that gracefully.

I'm not a sea dog (or air dog), but even absent electronic calculation and navigation devices of the last half century or so, is there any real advantage to using nm vs any other unit? Other than for the presumably niche case of traveling exactly directly along the equator, that is.

nm are great because charts and speeds are in units of nm and kt of course, but what does "real meaning" give you exactly?

I find it wonderful that they are learning to live with a nice successful society that is not in a state of constant exponential growth, and they've resisted doomers and deranged neoliberal calls to keep massively expanding population. Truly a leader in sustainability, a shining beacon to the world for what is actually possible as opposed to what "experts" (aka shills for billionaires) claim to be the case.

No, a lot of animals kill for fun (not just "pure survival"), including early humans, some apes, and quite probably our common ancestors.

And neither does the evolutionary drive to kill animals consider those things.

Our ancestors who evolved to hunt did not "play fair", they killed animals any way they possibly could. Running them off cliffs, into pits, setting fire to the forest to burn them alive. Might as well say guns and knives aren't hunting, that you have to use your bare feet and hands and that's it.

30mph across the entire fleet, 24x7? I don't live in a city with them but that sounds optimistic. 30mph seems like a decent average in a big city when you're on the move. Add stops to recharge, pick and drop fares, maintenance, and down time between fares, I'd not be surprised if it was half that or less.

It's a local exploit, which are not uncommon in Linux.

No.