Ease of access matters. To read those textbooks you have to basically be a chemist and know where to find them, which books etc. An AI model can just tell you step by step and even make a nice overview of which chemical will have the most effect.
Id compare it to guns. You can't just buy guns here in the corner store in most of Europe. Doesn't mean they are impossible to get and people could even make their own if they put enough effort in. But gun violence is way lower than the US anyway. Because really most people don't go that far. They don't have that kind of drive or determination.
Making a fleeting brain fart into an instantly actionable recipe is probably not a great idea with some topics.
Recycling stuff is hard, expensive, and energy-intensive. Why should electronics be uniquely recyclable?
We need to get past this idea that just because recycling makes you feel good must mean it IS good. Most of the time recycling stuff uses more CO2 than simply throwing it into a hole and making another one.
Interesting stuff about monofills and green concrete here [1].
Leaching is the big issue. Recycling solar panels is going to keep getting more important. Maybe if there was a way to lock-up the metals with additives [2], or make everything a mushroom substrate?
"Mycologists estimate that we have only catalogued about 5% to 10% of the world's fungi." There's probably some solutions in that world. [3]
This is a common literary device in wide use everywhere. No one is saying that YOU PERSONALLY did something just because you live in a place. Chill out.
That works until you are speaking with people who literally ask why our city is deciding so much stupid stuff. Recall average intelligence and how many people are dumber than that.
The media shape perception but they don't help with critical thinking...
When the media say "Pentagon" is attacking Iran, there's just no level of mental acrobatics you can do to ever arrive at the idea that the actual physical Pentagon building is growing arms and legs and traveling to Iran.
If you truly believe this is a real problem then you need to turn off your internet and touch grass.
I would not assume denseness -- many/most languages do not have this habit of referring to the capital. So it can easily sound weird if you aren't that immersed in English news and discussions.
I am not assuming denseness, I'm assuming performative denseness. People very often pretend to have stuff go over their head in a sad attempt to make a point.
It's kinda funny because in French, it depends on the situation.
If it's a French decision, you say "Matignon has done x" with Matignon being the home France's President.
If it's local, you say "the mayor" , and if its European, you say Brussels.
In Canada, if it's federal, you say Carey's government, if it's provincial the name of the prime minister, or the name of the party and if its local, you use the mayor's name.
But in this situation, the ECB cited in the article is in Germany, not Brussels, with a high independence from the EU, but yes, with the Parliament in Brussels.
So I was downvoted because I asked why OP mentioned Brussels just to be sure that is wasn't the usual "eu bad" post.
I don't think it's as simple as "corps. = bad". It's more that naive slogans like "don't be evil" used to be taken seriously. Companies exist to make money. This is ok! It generally works well in a capitalistic system. But to expect more than that people are realizing is a pipe dream... which is why you need good rules in place (i.e., regulations, laws) to direct companies and their behaviors.
I think they meant “society.” Society does, in fact, owe the people something, especially if we, the people, are expected to live by the rules, social norms, and expectations imposed by society.
Parent was talking about children (npi) — they don’t get out of society what they put into it. Society owes them care for bringing them into it, and if society defaults on this debt then society ends.
What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night
This is an important framing - we talk so much of "rights" but if you have a right to something, that means someone or someones have a duty to provide it.
No, no it does not. If we say everyone has a right to clean air and water, no one else has a duty to provide it. Those are given to us for free by the planet. The issue is that rich assholes (and poor assholes who only think of getting rich) take that away from everyone else by polluting what is common to everyone.
> I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.
You know, in phrases like "you owe it to your spouse/sibling/friend/self to...", people aren't talking about formal debt. Please try to keep that kind of meaning in mind when people say that society owes its people.
It's typical of non-technical people to ask for "like Facebook, but x y z." They just don't know the magnitude of effort required behind these projects.
reply