Microsoft's telemetry is different from some app's telemetry, since it can be spying on everything you do on your computer and the app's reach is comparatively limited. It's also different from most in that you cannot actually turn it off. Even when you think you have turned it off, the system is still phoning home more than can be adequately explained by update checks and the like. You have to take extraordinary measures to disable it, and then Microsoft will just turn it on again when you update. So yes, the telemetry really is part of it, and no, it's not the same as what "every app" has in it (which isn't even true.)

It's relevant in that you cannot trust anything he says, and anyone who does is a big dumbfuck, and their opinion should never be considered valuable on any subject ever again without exemplary evidence to go with it because they have proven that they are willing to believe stupid shit that nobody should believe.

That project wrapped up in 1986, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong only by one decade out of five. It's been almost four full decades now since that project concluded. How much in tax breaks and other subsidies have gone into fossil fuels since? How much further could we have been ahead in solar deployment if we had started spending that money on it in the 80s, let alone the 70s?

I notice that you didn't provide any counterexamples which is, of course, because there aren't any. No planned economy larger than a few hundred people has ever succeeded. While capitalist economies do go through cycles of expansion and recession (which a well-functioning central bank and adequate regulatory oversight can ameliorate but not eliminate), capitalism consistently makes the entire society wealthier, top to bottom. Yes, it does tend to produce inequality, and that has some negative social effects, but over time even the poorest end up better off than under any other system, assuming modest government regulation to prevent abuses.

There really isn't; definitely not compared to central planning. The results speak for themselves, but it's useful to understand why, I think. When people look at the way capitalist economies tend to produce 10 factories making similar shoes while it seems obvious that one big factory would be more efficient, the mistake they're making is in looking only at what they can see with their eyes: Buildings, machinery, people, all making shoes, redundantly. What they fail to see is the knowledge about how to make shoes efficiently that ebbs and flows through those same enterprises. This is the core flaw in the Labor Theory of Value, actually, which was the basis of Marx's understanding of economics.

The Labor Theory of Value will tell you that the value of a product is determined by the resources that went into producing it, material, energy and labor. But it omits the knowledge required to produce the product and the right knowledge can decrease the resource requirements by orders of magnitude. Capitalism works because it incentivizes the creation of knowledge that enables more efficient production, as well as the creation of better products (where "better" means "optimized to consumer desires in context").

This is why the 10 shoe factories end up being more efficient than one.

But that's not where capitalism provides the biggest efficiency boost to the economy. The biggest boost comes from the knowledge it generates about the most efficient way to allocate capital. Wall Street looks on its face like an incredible waste of money. All of those people generating massive personal incomes by "gambling" on stocks and bonds. In truth, that competitive game is the knowledge engine that no central planning board has come remotely close to matching, and certainly has never exceeded. All of the money to be made in trading incentivizes brainpower to concentrate on solving the problem of making sure that the most productive enterprises have the resources they need.

Any system that fails to replace the knowledge generation capitalism provides will ultimately be far less efficient, and will generate production shortfalls. No one has yet proposed any system that even attempts to cover that critical gap.

So far, the absolute best economic structure we've devised -- as evidenced by actual outcomes, not just theory -- is lightly-fettered capitalism overlaid with a redistributive social safety net.

The most "hilarious" thing is that we have had energy-positive solar technology since the 1970s, but people were still preaching nuclear power in the 1980s. It's even more "hilarious" that they are still doing it today, when solar power is cheap and easy and batteries are unprecedentedly cheap.

Rainforests are generally naturally near net zero. They don't produce oxygen because the rate of decomposition is rapid enough and the environment is wet enough that most decomposition is anaerobic, which means most of the carbon is released into the atmosphere. Their "purpose" is global cooling and filtering, they are evaporative coolers as they emit a lot of water vapor in the process of photosynthesis. Most oxygen comes from oceanic algae. Speaking of which, have you been keeping an eye on oceanic acidification?

This is the biggest problem in computer security, all the critical stuff that depends on a network connection accessible through an internet connection which is writable. Connections between the internet and critical control networks should be read-only. No critical medical or infrastructure equipment should ever have to "phone home" to verify that you still have a right to operate it. The entire idea is not only repugnant, it's literally contradictory to national security.

Ironically given that they especially don't need another problem, cancer patients are commonly instructed to consume high-protein supplements.

That's my question, but it's commonly related to processing equipment so that's my speculation until further notice. But maybe the commonly used proteins somehow attach environmental lead strongly? There could be multiple causes. I too am irritated that zero of the articles on this seem to address this question, though maybe I just haven't found the diamond in the pasture.

It probably isn't. Every so often we find out that another class of food products is commonly contaminated with lead.

It wasn't really the lead pipes, they are only a danger if your water is acidic. It was the lead everything else. Paint and glaze, makeup, cookware, and artificial sweetener. Also it's still debated whether they were getting enough lead for it to be a problem, but there's no safe amount and it's not an on/off switch so it's reasonable to argue that it was at least part of the problem.

Nobody knows what he actually believes, because he lies as naturally as breathing. He went from "I don't know anything about Project 2025" to "Russ Vought is a great guy who is helping me save money" without any transition at all. Trump's supporters are all for him lying because they think everyone else lies so it's okay. Well, statistically everyone else does lie. It's stupid to think that makes it okay, but it's understandable when there's so much lying going on.

Your question contains the answer, they aren't smart. They think they are, which is only possible because they aren't. Trump is against everything they stand for except for hurting brown people and owning the libs, and they are willing to cut off any parts of their faces to accomplish those things. They claim to be against pedos, but Trump is chief child molester. They claim to be in favor of small government, but Trump doesn't want to shrink it, he wants to make it all military and secret police. They claim to be against corporate excess, but everything Trump is doing is a handout to corporations. They claim to be pro-farmer, but Trump has destroyed America's ability to profit from exporting meat and produce. This list stretches on into infinity, in that it is still growing. The Trump supporters are too busy cheering for boats being blown up and brown people being sent to concentration camps to notice that they are getting nothing they asked for, but everything they voted for.

What do you think it breaks down into?

They enable more than 50% of ransomware.

Do you work at a backbone site? If not, your lack of an anecdote is typically worthless, not that if you said you did it would be credible given your typical game-playing bullshit.