... funding, this ranks relatively low on the "harm to the human race if we don't do this research now" scale.
Yeah, this hurts and I wish it wasn't happening, but many of our other science cutbacks hurt a lot more per dollar "saved."
As others have already pointed out, the data isn't going to disappear on us any time soon.
About crops: If climate change happens slowly enough, we can start farming in areas that are now too cold to farm in time to make up for areas that now produce but will be useless for farming later.
And if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it.
All joking aside, there may be a day within my lifetime where this statement is true. Well, at least close to true - we will always be able to do something about it, but there will come a time when we can't bring ourselves back to pre-industrial-times temperatures within a reasonable period of time (say, 100 years) without causing some other massive harm.
or die out as a civilization.
Nah, it'll continue regardless, just with these people filtered out. The ironic thing is that usually means atheists like me who actually understand how the whole thing works, leaving intact those who don't.
Correct, the headline should be: Why is Fertility So Low in EXPENSIVE Countries?
The reality is that 'high income' more likely than not means high prices, constant pressure to keep earning money, because there are very few things in 'high income' (expensive) countries that doesn't cost money. We are constantly forced to pay taxes, never mind that in expensive countries large parts of the population live in dense urban areas, in cities and nobody has land that they can live off of. If you have no source of food other than the store and you cannot avoid paying taxes and paying high costs of owning or renting a property, then you are constantly under pressure to earn money.
In an expensive country you have expensive government and this government never ceases to pressure you to pay more taxes, makes things truly unaffordable by pretending to give it to you for free, basically in expensive countries you are forced to provide not only for yourself and for your children and maybe for your elderly parents, you are forced to provide for your expensive government.
An expensive government is obviously the cost of running the government itself, salaries, pensions, buildings, all expenses but it is also all of the laws, that are constantly adding more and more expenses to the system, thus mostly forcing the government to get deeper into debt and to steal your purchasing power through inflation (money printing).
Under these circumstances people who have access to contraceptives will use them almost always and this prevents almost all unwanted pregnancies. The other part of the population is just too stressed out and too tired from constant earning to pay for all of this 'high income' expensive stuff.
At the end children become a luxury for those, who can afford just a little more than the other guy or they become a way to suck money out of the system itself by getting onto various programs. They are an irrational choice for many, so to have them you either have to have a direct financial incentive or to be irrational or to be wealthy enough to afford them.
That's Baastin, you ignorant ^H^H^H^H LOST CARRIER
>"Where I live, most people just use the recycle bin and the trash can as the same thing. It is a two for one deal! woohoo!"
In some (many?) areas it all goes to the dump anyway (without any recycling).
Too bad that is not what the article is about. It is about contaminating the recycling. It is not about failing to recycle. The title is WRONG. Even the summary doesn't support the title.
>"Ohio City Using AI-Equipped Garbage Trucks To Scan Your Trash, Scold You For Not Recycling"
No, that is not what the article says and not what the summary says. There is ZERO in there about scolding people about NOT recycling. They are scolding people who put incorrect junk into their recycling bins. Big difference.
>"It's required for several major GUI apps, like Chromium."
But you should be using Firefox, not chromium
Your point is correct and understood, however. Yes, Ubuntu is trying to force everyone to use containers, which is a horrible move to start with. And Snap containers, which makes the horrible move even more horrible.
That is one of several reasons droves of people have left Ubuntu for Mint. And Mint is ready to debase from Ubuntu if needed. And there is always Debian.
>"I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian when Snaps became an unavoidable thing. I only switched to Ubuntu for compatibility with more recent software, but nowadays I don't notice anything that's not available on Debian."
I would be much more inclined to use Debian than Ubuntu on a new server install. And more more inclined to use that or Mint for a desktop install. Even Mint is hedging their bets against Ubuntu with their alternative LDME distro in the wings.
Given a chance, Ubuntu will act just like RedHat. They have already shown a lot of hostility.
>"Every other distro action that I see further supports my growing opinion that Debian is the answer."
I concur. I wish we would pour the effort and funds into the Debian project directly and make its LTS version the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". If vendors back it, it can happen. I have had enough of corporate capture and monetization of what server Linux should be.
I am all for paid actual support- tech calls, installs, Email, chat groups, training, education certifications, equipment certifications, etc. But not for the actual Linux distro use. It flies in the face of the entire spirit of GNU/Linux. People are SICK TO DEATH of dealing with "entitlements" and 1,000 page licensing agreements and crap just to have access to a stable, business-friendly Linux distro.
>"Debian solves all the issues."
Not quite, the LTS is still not completely long enough for many platforms. But it is close. And without large hardware vendor-backing from HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc; and software or cloud vendors, it will be problematic. Swing enough of those and it is very possible the others will quickly follow.
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn
