Michaelmitchell

You could argue the opposite, genocide would be guiding reproduction away from diversity.

Yeah, but the other option is humanity grows to reach an industrial carrying capacity which would be horrific for the environment, and people. The average person would live at the poverty level of a medieval peasant in the polluted environment of industrial slums. There would also be mass famines every couple decades like back under the agricultural carrying capacity, but these would kill billions instead of hundreds of thousands. Mandatory birth control sucks but it beats the suffering caused by rampant population growth.

Just started timberborn and it seems to be in this vain. It’s a beaver city builder and you have to manage the river with dams to survive droughts, along with the typical food, water and energy resource management.

Got about halfway through it and does she explain her position of ai doesn’t exist better ? Seems like she just uses that example of cats at the beginning then goes on with the rest of the video being a general overview of the limitations and dangers of ai/ml. Would be nice if she defined what she thinks intelligence is. The rest of the video seems fine, albeit well tread by now, but her insistence of “ai doesn’t exist” needs more explanation.

I sort of agree with this, no one uses that bike lane to commute. The bridge itself is 4 miles and there gonna be another couple of miles of hills and suburbs on either side before you get to anything. We shouldn’t just make it another car lane though, imo we should keep up the barriers and make it a bus only lane during the morning. The bridge is theoretically a great transit corridor as there’s unconnected regional rail on both sides, along with ferry terminals, it’s just those buses always get stuck in traffic. That way Everybody wins, the bicyclists can just strap there bike to the front of the bus and only have to ride the last mile, people who can’t ride a bike but want a faster commute out of traffic can take the bus then hop on one of the regional trains, the cars can sit in their soul crushing traffic and watch a bus whiz by and realize the error of their ways.

No one does cycle to commute there though, the bridge itself is 4 miles and then there’s another couple miles of hills and suburbs before you get to where you want to go. Very few people are willing to do a 8+ mile commute on bike every morning. That doesn’t mean that lane should just be another car lane though, imo they should keep the barriers up and make it a bus only lane during the morning. Everybody wins, the bicyclists can just strap there bike to the front of the bus and only have to ride the last mile, people who can’t ride a bike but want a faster commute out of traffic can take the bus, the cars can sit in their soul crushing traffic and watch a bus whiz by and realize the error of their ways.

Also it assumes the increase in consumption from needing more calories will be uniform when my guess is it’s not. Most people would have two servings of meat a day as a base augmented by a bunch of starches, sugars and fats to cover most of the calories, and any increases would probably be snacks of those starches and sugars that are way less co2 per calorie. If your diet is a stereotypical cheeseburger and fries, and your still hungry, your probably not gonna order another 1/4 cheeseburger and 1/4 fries, you’ll probably just get another order of fries.

To prevent anti-trust suits. There’s a reason meta never bought Twitter even though it could many times over, they’d be brought to court for having the top three social media platforms. If they were going to enter this space they needed something to point to and say they aren’t a monopoly.

No, it never worked. The examples are web browsers, email and java, all of which remain open standards. There’s a reason Google doesn’t try this shit even though they own a large portion of the email and browser market, because they know it’ll just piss people off and bring them in front of a judge for anti-competitive behavior and ultimately do nothing.

There’s a general, well founded, distrust of meta. Theres a general theory going around that they will embrace, extend and extinguish the fediverse. It will ride the wave of federation then when it gets large enough it will defederate or add some dumb feature that will break all compatibility. The problem with this strategy is it will bring them in front of a court for anti-conpetitive behavior, just like what happened to Microsoft every time it tried to do this, and possibly break up the whole company as instagram might get shaved off too. There’s a reason Google doesn’t try to do this with chrome or gmail, they learned it’s a bad strategy from Microsoft. The reality is the fediverse as it stands right now is a blip to meta, a blip they can point to and say they aren’t a monopoly, but just a blip, not some radical existential threat that needs to be destroyed.

Meta does not want to “consume the fediverse” , it’s not worth it. Threads has been up for a day and it already has 10x the number of active users than mastodon. Mastodon and the fediverse as it currently stands, is a blip compared to instagram and Twitter. They’re doing activitypub so they can claim there’s a free market and avoid any anti-trust litigation for owning the three largest social media platforms. If that means a relatively small number of people stay on mastodon instead of threads that’s a small price to pay.

Except it doesn’t work and no corporation does it any more because it doesn’t. Look at the two main examples, internet browsers and email. Both of them remain open platforms with viable foss alternatives because google knows that doing this sort of stuff will get them in trouble with anti-trust suits.

Maybe not in Lemmy but on mastodon individual users can block domains.

And open them up to anti-conpetitive and monopoly law suits? Meta has already been getting calls to be broken up for having the top two social medias, if they get the full trifecta then they’re gonna have a tough time selling defederation to the FTC or E.U. Better for them to take 90% of the pie and allow others to fight over the scraps then try for full 100% and risk litigation.