Indeed, only a third of the US voted for Trump.

This is well put. I'd also add that people are relentlessly marketed to to consume more to support that economic growth. People from the 19th or early 20th century might well consider the amount of psychological pressure we get to buy things to be a relentless propaganda campaign.

I think there are some other points worth considering here. The "chasing arrows" logo was originally intended more for labeling material content than recyclability. And there is evidence that plastic/petchems industry has used this state of affairs to promote plastics as being much recyclable than they actually are.

Everything I've learned suggests that only plastics # 1-3 are "practicably recyclable" in that the material recovered from these has decent purity and can be used for a meaningful range of purposes. That's because plastics vary hugely in terms of their actual chemical composition and how they react to common recycling methods. In fact AFAICT really only cardboard and some metals recycle "usefully" at present. So if you are going put energy into recycling, aluminum cans and cardboard give the most ROI.

So there is merit to the argument that those arrows are, as they currently exist, misleading to consumers.

There's also merit to what you are saying in that tying the state of recycling facilities for a particular set of materials is inherently complicated.

IMHO the key question is how to get more materials to be actually and meaningfully recyclable, and how to set up waste collection so that more materials can be usefully recovered from existing waste streams.

I haven't read enough about this bill to figure out whether it's likely to help or hinder, but that's the benchmark that I'd apply.

There are considerably more than two sides to this issue...

Don't forget GPS.

Doesn't IT keep the back ups or do they also use old fashioned notebooks and pens?

Well, yes. For many years, presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, referred to the United States as "the indispensible nation". And my reaction was always, "Doesn't that mean the US is a single point of failure for civilization?"

We are currently performing an experiment which addresses this question: can the US enjoy the benefits of soft power without the cost? That's the whole point of obeying *norms*. No individual force is going to punish you if you are treacherous, mercurial, foul-mouthed, disrespectful and generally unpredictable. Everyone will punish you.

I think an inevitable cost of this experiment will be that the world will decide that the US can't be a single point of failure for global democracy any longer. In many ways, that's something that will be good for us. But it's also going to cost us in painful ways. When the world decides to move away from the dollar as the international reserve currency, you will see both inflation and higher interest rates on everything from credit cards to mortgages, to business loans that will offset the export advantages. We will need *more* business investment to shift the economy to producing low value goods again, so the transition will be rocky.

I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

What a load of BS.
"It is about when social media can access our children."

It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.

Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.

If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.

Interesting and sad.

And what alternative do you suggest?
You might disagree with certain points but the overall work they are doing is still very important, especially in a Trump environment.

Spot on.

What happens when people take someone's "cute OOTD" pic and put them in another outfit without any consent? That kind of stuff will get the young people off of Insta and looking back at Snap or VSCO others.

What happens when someone swaps a paid influencer's merch for another brand?

And that's not even touching the whole issue of non-consensual sexual content.

And why exactly do regular people who post like or want that content to be manipulated? What's the value to the primary content-making user?

The Zuckodei and Pinchmans of the world seem to think that people will make public content no matter what they do. I'm not naive enough to think they'll all migrate to Proton or privacy-preserving OSS stacks, but I do think even regular people have limited patience for having their thoughts, communications, and likenesses changed and monetized without benefit to them.

Funny :)

Yes we do.
But since the quality if the subjects have gone down we spend here at least 10 mins. less time.

I think the Kessler syndrome should be renamed the Bezos-Musk syndrome because with all the Starklink satellites in orbit and with the addition of the Amazon ones it will increase the likelihood of.a satellite collision that will cascade and cause more collisions, so much so that orbital debris will prevent us from launching any more satellites or humans getting into orbit for decades or even centuries.