Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.

After months of trying, I still can’t get Linux to recognize the 2.5Gbit network cards, or to function with multiple monitors. If the hardware support was better, I would ditch Windows for good instantly.

Hmmm. More kneck beards on Lemmy than I expected. Then again, why should I be surprised?

Democracy: “of the People, by the People, for the People”.

Y’all seem to forget the middle part. Institutions, including the media, are not there to hand democracy on a silver platter. Democracy must be safeguarded. Constantly. There is no room for passive participation. American democracy is under threat because people are so apathetic and just expect it to happen on its own.

Statements like “the media should…” are not going to accomplish anything. It’s just more passive participation.

A constitutional crisis is very likely over the next 4 years. And if it does, all bets are off.

Do the abortion at home yourself under Castle Doctrine. (I’m not actually advocating this, but it seems to be what Texas wants)

It depends how and what you are measuring.

This article is measuring GDP per capita, which roughly indicates average productivity. Imagine you have 100 people making on average 1000$ a week. Now add 20 more people making 100$ per week ('cause the only jobs they can find are cleaning toilets) suddenly you have 120 people now making an average of (1000x100+20x100)/120 = 850$ per week.

So yeah, the average productivity went down. Obviously it’s a problem if those new people can only find toilet scrubbing jobs. And that’s exactly the kind of story that a decrease in macroeconomic performance that a measure like GDP per capita is telling.

It always has been a policy problem. You’ve got your head in the sand if you think tech could be great if only people/corporations can just be made to be nice. Wake the f* up. People and corporations will use technology to exploit people. Not all of them, but enough of them to ruin it for everyone else.

Jokes aside, for those who don’t know, the real nomenclature is association football (origin of the word soccer) and gridiron football, respectively. Many more types and subtypes of football too!

A percentage is going to be more useful to a consumer than a volume anyway, especially for bottles that are consumed in part. 40% tells you a drink is going to be strong, without any further math based on whatever size drink you have poured yourself. If you wanted to know the volume alcohol of a poured drink, you’d have to linearly interpolate according to the size of glass you poured yourself, which is one step beyond just multiplying the alcohol percentage by the volume of the glass.

So in conclusion, labeling the volume of alcohol on a bottle is only practical for beer bottles and prepackaged cocktails, etc. If you do want to know the volume of alcohol consumed, simply multiply the volume of drink consumed by the ABV%.

The fact that one kind of monopoly isn’t abuse on technical grounds (but still is abuse is in many other ways) but another monopoly is abuse is exactly the problem being highlighted. Why are we just sweeping this problem under the rug of public opinion?

You guys are twisting yourself in knots about Spez. This isn’t the doing of one person. This is the inevitable conclusion of every business model where you aren’t the paying customer. You are cattle. Kept alive just minimally to be slaughtered and sold to the highest bidder. The advertisers get new features. You are catered to only so much to keep you on the platform, but your comfort will be sacrificed the instant there is profit to be made.

Maybe just donate to the Lemmy devs or your favourite instance instead of following in the shitty footsteps of reddit premium badges.

The primary source of green house gas isn’t deforestation, it’s fossil fuels pulled up out of the ground.

Yes, you can think of trees as solar-powered CO2 crystalization, so more trees, more CO2 removed. The problem though is that this is a temporary solution. When trees die and rot or burn (forest fire), they ultimately release most of that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Even worse, that carbon may be released as methane instead, if it decomposes anaerobicly.

There’s only so much biomass the earth can sustain to naturally store carbon. The page you link is correct in that we definitely shouldn’t make the problem even worse by reversing what carbon the biomass does store.

But it is in no way the solution to putting carbon we mined out of the earth back into the earth. Well trees as a carbon sequestration did already happen: it just took millions of years for buried biomass to be turned into oil and coal.

No, seriously: all they are good for is making things sound fancy.

This is the danger though.

If “boomers” are making the mistake of thinking that AI is capable of great things, “zoomers” are making the mistake of thinking society is built on anything more than some very simple beliefs in a lot of stupid people, and all it takes to make society collapse is to convince a few of these stupid people that their ideas are any good.

I truly applaud the attempt to radically innovate, from stainless steel to eliminate car rust (how much of it truly is stainless, mechanically speaking?), to major aesthetical design overhaul (even though it does not appeal to me at all). With so much innovation, delays ought to be expected

That being said, everything else is just atrocious. Production issues are blamed on unexpected delays because of innovation and vice versa. It just screams project mismanagement. This thing should’t have been revealed at all. Also, why the fuck does this have bullet proof glass? A truck for the apocalypse? Are they trying to sell an APC? Who asked for any of that?

Can’t tell who this is making fun of. I guess the answer is: everyone.

The assertion that non-paying customers do not provide value to a business is patently and demonstrably false. Especially in a free market.

A platform like YouTube benefits from non-paying customers because these customers still drive engagement and help solidify market share.

Non-paying customers still consume sponsor spots, which benefits creators, keeping creators on YouTube and therefore still benefitting YouTube.

Non-paying customers will promote YouTube just by using it, even for free, and create the impression that YouTube is the only game in town, instead of looking for and promoting alternatives.

Having a non-paying customer on your platform is in most ways better than having that customer become a paying customer on a competing platform.

The only time this dynamic no longer holds true is if YouTube believes their position is so entrenched that there is no more competition and they can squeeze the users all they want (end game enshitification).

I know you are being sarcastic, but it’s not sarcasm at all, and therefore no laughing matter, when more and more websites drop support for none-chromium browsers, or actively block them. Netizens tend to have some missguided belief that every problem can be solved with software alone. This is a trap.

Depends on the instance.