ve never seen a software distribution mechanism as careless and sloppy as NPM. Bazillions of dependencies and no signing of packages. [ ... ]

Rust's cargo packaging system is almost exactly the same way. And the last time I looked, Go's packaging was very similar. And package signing won't help if the maintainer's key/cert has been exfiltrated and cracked.

This is what you get when you embrace DLL Hell -- the idea that you should pin your program to a single specific revision of a library, rather than, y'know, doing the engineering work to ensure that, as an app author, you're relying only on documented behavior; and, as a library author, to be responsible for creating backward compatibility for old apps linking to old entry points. Sticking to that principle lets you update shared system libraries with the latest enhancements and bug fixes, while remaining relatively sure none of the old clients will break.

"Sometimes you have to break backward compatibility." Agreed, but the interval between those breaks should be measured in years, not days.

You oversimplify. I despise Rust, but it does address real problems. (I'm not sure how well, because I won't use it.) I'm thinking of thinks like deadlock, livelock, etc. As someone above pointed out, there are lots of applications that don't need to deal with that, and subsets can work for them. (The above poster worked in a domain where all memory could be pre-allocated.)

Rust felt like programming with one hand tied behind my back. So I dropped it. Only one reference to a given item it just too restrictive. Perhaps it is really Turing complete, but so is a Turing machine. But multi-threaded programs really do need a better approach. (My real beef with C++ (and C) though is their handling of unicode. So I'm currently experimenting with D [ https://dlang.org/ ], which seems pretty good for the current application (though honestly since it's I/O bound Python would be quite acceptable). )

Large houses in hot climates don't have enough roof space to accommodate the number of panels you would need to displace grid power. Using obsolete panels that generated less power when they were new is only going to make the problem worse.

Leaning into unreliable power sources when demand is increasing is just going to make any supply issues worse.

Someone posted what they pay for electricity in California and what their buy back rate is and their rates are insane.

I have mine connected to a Raspberry Pi and a Google Chromecast. I can update the Pi myself and if the Chromecast fails, gets EOLed or just enshittified, I'm out $30 and still have a functional TV with the Pi. Then I just throw some other inexpensive device on it.

By contrast, the 'Smart' TV leaves me stuck. If it gets enshittified or EOLed, I don't have much in the way of options unless I can figure out a way to lobotomize it and make it a dumb TV.

Meanwhile, the all-or-nothing Smart TV removes real disincentives for enshittification.

So no, for the consumer, it really does NOT make sense. For corporate executives rubbing their hands waiting for enshitification day, it makes a lot of sense, unfortunately.

The thin is, the artists WANT to keep the prices down because they (or at least their managers) understand that fans able to get tickets and see concerts is a driving force for their fandom. You don't get big or even stay big by only being seen by a few wealthy patrons (or their kids).

Actually, they own a few and have a contractual lock on many many more.

The big problem with these "smart" things is that it's getting hard to avoid them. Several years ago I was looking for TV. A few dozen "smart" TVs to choose from but exactly 2 non-smart TVs. I don't mean 2 models, I mean 2 TVs in the whole store. Luckily one of them was suitable.

Some of it will take care of itself. You can only veg on the couch so long before you die from otherwise preventable disease.

The percentage affected may be smaller than it seems. Some want to veg and watch sports all weekend because they were forced to bust their as all week in a job they hate. Take away the job (and the need for the job) and they might get more active in their free time. The unemployed who sit and veg mostly have no money to do anything and have lost hope in getting a job.

Though I'm sure there are some di-hards that reallywould sit on the couch until they de-compensate and die. But that is a choice they make and it would solve the problem.

Much of the world's Capitalism...

Do you really think a significant portion of the U.S. Adult population really want to go to work?

You're wrong about potatoes. They *are* high in starch, but they aren't "nearly all" starch, like corn or wheat.

Yes, it's got a long way to go. Unfortunately, at least SOME of the changes are (currently) on an exponential growth curve, and people have very poor ability to project those. (And also at some point "limiting factors" will manifest, which aren't significant during the early part of the rise.)

There are quite plausible scenarios where we are still in the early part of the exponential growth curve. Nobody can prove whether this speculation is true or false, but we should be prepared in case it is true.

I remember a fair number of people in the '80s getting fooled by Eliza, a collection of heuristics designed to create the illusion that the computer understood what was being types and formulating reasoned responses. Of course, it was doing no such thing.

Modern chatbots do a much better job of it. 'Good' enough that susceptible adults sometimes go over the edge into a full mental health crisis after a month or so interacting with them.

The constant affirmation and un-wavering support makes the chatbots the ultimate yes-man. We have all seen what happens when celebrities and people in power become drunk on their own yes-men.

It's worse than internet echo-chambers. At least those don't tend to let the conversation get that personal and specific. Chatbots will get as personal as you wnt and they are designed to never break engagement (how will the company keep gathering underpants if the chatbot keeps saying no?).

And all of that with adults. Now imagine turning all of that on a young teen that hasn't had time to mature enough to know better. YIPE!

Ban on tobacco products.

Yeah, let's make cigarettes cool again!