I think if a company buys a 100 horsepower engine, they should report that they added 100 horses to their stable. It's basically the same thing, isn't it?

I guess maybe renaming the company for the metaverse wasn't such a great idea after all.

Your information is out of date. Read this if you want current information. Most EVs now have similar range to typical ICE cars, and the effect of cold on range is similar for both EVs and ICEs, usually about 15%.

At first I thought you were being sarcastic. Because obviously it's much easier to install enough chargers where the population density is high. When people are very spread out, it takes a lot more chargers to make sure you're close to one wherever you go, and then fewer people use each charger making them less profitable.

Then I realized you were being serious and had to back up and try to figure out your logic. I'm not sure I've figured it out, but maybe you aren't familiar with typical EV chargers?

A charger is just a small box at the side of the curb. It takes up almost no space at all. You don't need to sacrifice a single parking space to it. EV chargers are great in crowded cities, because they need so much less space than gas stations.

Wikipedia has a summary of the causes of desertification. The most relevant part:

The goal is to create a crust over the top that resists erosion and gives plants a place to grow. Once the plants are established, they further resist erosion.

It's a little unintuitive that heavy rain can sometimes promote desertification. When there's lots of plants, the rain soaks into the ground and helps them to grow. If the plants are removed (through overgrazing, unsustainable agriculture, drought, etc.), it washes away the top soil and makes the ground less fertile.

The goal is to fight desertification, that is, to undo the harm we're doing to the environment and put it back to the way it was before.

This sounds like an actual good use of AI. There are three elements needed for it to work well.

1. The AI never refuses a prescription. Its only options are to approve it or forward it to a doctor, which is what would have happened anyway. It never makes someone less likely to get their prescription renewed.

2. It isn't used for risky drugs (anything addictive or with a high risk of abuse), so the harm from something getting renewed inappropriately is low.

3. It doesn't happen automatically, only when the customer asks to have their prescription renewed. They probably know pretty well whether they still need the medicine or not.

Done like that, it can save doctors time from handling routine refills with no serious downside.

Given that Canada's birth rate is only 1.25 births per woman, far below the replacement rate, your comment comes across as pure racism. Which is undoubtedly what it is. We can't have those Africans reproducing faster than our good white native Canadians. Remove the bigotry from your statement and we conclude that stabilizing the population is a good thing.

As for your "argument", if we can call it that, there's no profit from having children unless the amount you're paid is more than what you spend raising them. That won't necessarily be true. And even then it's a really hard way to make money. If you think raising children is easy, you clearly don't have children.

There's a big hole in his logic: if AI can do everything, that doesn't mean everyone can have everything they need, much less everything they want. It means labor becomes worthless. Land, energy, water, raw materials, etc. remain valuable and finite. Wealth is still a thing, but the only way to get it is to have it. You can't gain wealth by working, only by investing your existing wealth.

It's a great system for the wealthy and a terrible one for everyone else.

This is a problem where the internet can actually help. Give the students a homework assignment to google "how to read a clock", and tell them by tomorrow they'd better know how to do it. A high school student shouldn't have any problem with that assignment.

This point is significant:

When the average income level is high, inequality doesn't necessarily mean a lot of poor people. But when the average income is low, inequality means a lot of people below the already low average.

It's been known for a long time that the correlation between wealth and happiness mainly exists at the very low end. Poverty makes people unhappy. Once you have enough money that you're not worried about being able to satisfy your basic needs, further wealth has little or no benefit to happiness.

One of the world's biggest companies buying a small company whose product directly competes with their own. Nothing anticompetitive here. Just good capitalism wisely eliminating a competitor before it can get big enough to be a threat. Which is totally different!

I think they're mainly talking about large companies. Among people I know who work at small companies, fully remote has become the norm.

I agree with the author about software distribution, but disagree about desktop environments.

Having a choice of desktop environments is a great feature of Linux. If you use Windows, you get what Microsoft gives you. Everything works the way they decided it should. If you don't like it (and I really don't like it), tough. You have no choice. With Linux, if you don't like one desktop environment, you have lots of other choices.

But software distribution is a big problem. As both a Linux user and a Linux developer, I see this from both sides. Developers should be able to build a single package, and users should be able to install that package whatever their distro. The current system puts too much burden both on the developers and the users. Expecting a developer to build deb, rpm, snap, flatpak, and appimage packages for every release of their software is unrealistic. Expecting users to figure out which of the many package formats is the best choice for their computer is also unrealistic.

Umm... what?

Have you used any modern desktop Linux distro in the past 10 years? Most of them are much cleaner and easier to use than Windows. There are even ones specifically designed to look and feel like Windows, if that's really what you want. I have no idea what "definition" you're referring to.

You're mixing up Windows with Linux. Windows is the OS that keeps making unnecessary, gratuitous changes. Mostly to ram AI and Microsoft advertizements everywhere they can. It also is far more buggy than most Linux distros.

I can help you with that. Start by googling "best linux distro for beginners". Here are a few of the top hits. Comparing them I see that Ubuntu, Pop!_OS, Mint, and Zorin appear on almost every list. All good choices.

How to install it? Just run the installer. It'll walk you through everything.

How to administer it? Click the "settings" icon. All the options you need are there, and you can find online guides for all of them. Administering a modern Linux machine is much easier than Windows.