Not at all. Instead it's rediscovering the problem that USSR discovered after WW2. If you want to have a union of states that have wildly different cultural norms and standards, you must have a tyrannical universal rule set and complete lock down on information about the system and how it works.
This is a part of the slowly creeping information lock down. Other parts range from hate speech and blasphemy legislation being interpreted increasingly widely to removal of obstacles from consolidation of ownership of mass media companies. Since they can't take the USSR way of simply nationalising everything and persecuting anyone doing the same things privately, all they can do is enacting a shaky alliance with large capital holders in relevant industries.
This particular legislation package is basically a bastard child of those two intentions coming together. On one hand, the large holders in mass media industries are in severe decline due to liberalization of media frontier by internet companies. On the other hand, same liberalization also removes the ability to lock down the information about the system and how it works. It's not actually aimed at "the rest of the world". This is distinctly a shot aimed at multiple internal objectives. Any external impact is barely an afterthought. And considering just how critical these issues are to the primary agenda of survival of EU itself, foreign pressure is unlikely to change anything on this front.
It will have to be done by member states themselves in the upcoming negotiations on what actual legislation package should and should not hold. Considering the current representation in two main power houses in Europe being highly unpopular but extremely pro "EU as a sovereign union of states rather than a union of sovereign states", this will likely be pushed through in some form.
And then, the shit you're talking about will actually hit the fan.
Considering that it also appears to be leading to innate severe decline of cultures that adapted it due to demographic realities, it appears to be a "next step" that is an evolutionary dead end at this point of history.
That's the problem of work scalability and has nothing to do with "exploitation". In society with monetization of the future, more scalable work is rewarded more than less scalable work. Basically the work that handles "ideas, inventions and contributions" that scale in such a way that single person can keep working in a way that will generate more and more as his career progresses.
It has nothing to do with UBI or "exploitation", that trendy Marxist buzzword that is applied by various Marxist schools of thought for every aspect of human life where competence allows for wealth generation beyond their personal hegemon, the "worker".
Factory workers haven't been that cheap in China on average in a long time. That's one of the reasons why China is experiencing the problems it's experiencing today. Alongside economic success, their labour is no longer as competitive as it used to be.
And notably, this is still reality in overwhelming majority of the world. People in the West (culturally) seem to forget that outside Western cultural sphere, it's a norm rather than exception that family is the primary care giving unit. Not the state.
In many countries, this is actually codified into the law. For example, in China male children are required by law to take care of their parents, and if male child refuses to do so, there is significant legal precedent of parents suing the child for support and winning.
Various regions on other continents, like in Africa and South America have different paths to enforcement, but base principle remains the same. It's a major difference between Western culture, which is a massive outlier in disconnecting "having children" from "social security".
The option is to go back to existence before such tokens were invented.
It was utterly brutal. Most children didn't make it alive to reproductive age. If they did, females were stuck doing nothing but doing the procreating for as long as their bodies held together, because if you wanted any security should you survive, you needed to have enough children alive at the end of your procreative cycle that survivors would be able to take care of you in addition to their other responsibilities. Because when you lack such tokens, there's no handy way to monetize any skills not directly related to either surviving, or supporting the immediate surviving. "Ideas, inventions and contributions" that did not serve such people were simply ignored as useless.
Invention of money is one of the key breakthrough of human societies that allowed us to invent the "monetizing the future" aspect of work. Which meant that work that didn't have immediate impact on survival became doable without starving to death.
Exactly this. It's not that there's actual risk with sand. It's that economic opportunism by organised criminal networks can cause significant impact.
This applies to everything from stealing cabling for scrap metal to dumping toxic waste. Italian mafia for example is well known for doing the latter for profit.
It did. And then it was snuffed out by the extinction event that was caused by much more energetic lifeforms that outcompeted. If you don't win the competition for survival, you die.
That is the way of evolution. Always has been. Something that young city-dwelling folks need harsh reminder of, as life in many of the modern Western cities has allowed many to forget that the cycle keeps going, and doesn't care about their feelings. And it will keep going long after they are devoured by their own gut bacteria.
No, but considering the incredible amount of young people who seem to be genuinely indoctrinated to think that "scientific modelling" is the same thing as "truth", it may be a necessary reminder that modelling is one of the least accurate forms of scientific quest for better understanding of reality.
If you want to go that way, you got the wrong gas. It's a giant machine built to generate and consume O2. We can see this clearly in the oxidization of atmosphere when chlorophyll was introduced and spread among the early life forms on the planet, which enabled existence of essentially all other life (barring the few exceptions that exist in closed systems like subterranean volcanoes).
CO2 emissions by these life forms were utilization of the fact that atmosphere was now rich in O2. Your version puts the cart before the horse.
Actual costs of operating an airline crashed in the last decade. Reminder: Analysts where talking about "when is oil barrel going to hit 200USD". One of the biggest costs of operating an airline is fuel.
Not really. Sand is a tiny fraction of cost of concrete. Crushed rock can't be all that much more expensive, seeing how it's used for concrete TODAY according to the story itself. It's just more expensive enough to use sand at this point in time.
Like I noted above, your knee jerk reaction is completely in line with how this kind of propaganda works. It primes you to think among the certain lines, catastrophising a tiny problem.
Young people are the target. The idea is that since young people are rather ignorant of how world works due to lack of experience, they can be primed with certain kinds of propaganda.
Most of us older folks already have enough experience to know that most of these hyperbolic "small problem we're going to sensationalize" claims are bogus. If price of sand goes up enough, we'll simply start using crushed rock instead. That's it.
>Those incovinences are why user replacable batties went out of favor
A blatant lie. They went out of favour because they prolonged useful life of the most common entropic failure point in the phone. Inability to easily change batteries translates directly to more phones sold.
Considering that spare battery literally fits into your wallet in most cases, and popping a battery into a dock next to your phone to charge has been the simplest thing for decades, your bullshit is particularly egregious.
Not going to even bother with your whining about the rest. You're literally regurgitating a common marketing BS item that has been used to sell people more less capable and more expensive things for longer than I have been alive.
Two easy options to solve essentially all battery related smartphone problems:
1. Increase phone thickness, and use this change to increase battery volume. 2. Return to having a user replaceable battery that can be replaced in a few seconds by popping the rear panel off, taking the empty battery out, putting a full one in and closing the rear panel. As essentially all phones in 1990s allowed you to do.
And suddenly battery problems all go away. But with those changes, phone's effective life increases significantly, so sales will go down. Therefore, it will not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of the children? And adult people we want to treat like they're children?
That's a pretty horrifying way of framing the issue. But you're probably correct on the message it sent.
Not at all. Instead it's rediscovering the problem that USSR discovered after WW2. If you want to have a union of states that have wildly different cultural norms and standards, you must have a tyrannical universal rule set and complete lock down on information about the system and how it works.
This is a part of the slowly creeping information lock down. Other parts range from hate speech and blasphemy legislation being interpreted increasingly widely to removal of obstacles from consolidation of ownership of mass media companies. Since they can't take the USSR way of simply nationalising everything and persecuting anyone doing the same things privately, all they can do is enacting a shaky alliance with large capital holders in relevant industries.
This particular legislation package is basically a bastard child of those two intentions coming together. On one hand, the large holders in mass media industries are in severe decline due to liberalization of media frontier by internet companies. On the other hand, same liberalization also removes the ability to lock down the information about the system and how it works. It's not actually aimed at "the rest of the world". This is distinctly a shot aimed at multiple internal objectives. Any external impact is barely an afterthought. And considering just how critical these issues are to the primary agenda of survival of EU itself, foreign pressure is unlikely to change anything on this front.
It will have to be done by member states themselves in the upcoming negotiations on what actual legislation package should and should not hold. Considering the current representation in two main power houses in Europe being highly unpopular but extremely pro "EU as a sovereign union of states rather than a union of sovereign states", this will likely be pushed through in some form.
And then, the shit you're talking about will actually hit the fan.
That moment when someone thinks they're smarter than you, because they weren't smart enough to understand what you wrote.
Ok.
Considering that it also appears to be leading to innate severe decline of cultures that adapted it due to demographic realities, it appears to be a "next step" that is an evolutionary dead end at this point of history.
Apply reading comprehension. Thank you.
That's the problem of work scalability and has nothing to do with "exploitation". In society with monetization of the future, more scalable work is rewarded more than less scalable work. Basically the work that handles "ideas, inventions and contributions" that scale in such a way that single person can keep working in a way that will generate more and more as his career progresses.
It has nothing to do with UBI or "exploitation", that trendy Marxist buzzword that is applied by various Marxist schools of thought for every aspect of human life where competence allows for wealth generation beyond their personal hegemon, the "worker".
Factory workers haven't been that cheap in China on average in a long time. That's one of the reasons why China is experiencing the problems it's experiencing today. Alongside economic success, their labour is no longer as competitive as it used to be.
And notably, this is still reality in overwhelming majority of the world. People in the West (culturally) seem to forget that outside Western cultural sphere, it's a norm rather than exception that family is the primary care giving unit. Not the state.
In many countries, this is actually codified into the law. For example, in China male children are required by law to take care of their parents, and if male child refuses to do so, there is significant legal precedent of parents suing the child for support and winning.
Various regions on other continents, like in Africa and South America have different paths to enforcement, but base principle remains the same. It's a major difference between Western culture, which is a massive outlier in disconnecting "having children" from "social security".
The option is to go back to existence before such tokens were invented.
It was utterly brutal. Most children didn't make it alive to reproductive age. If they did, females were stuck doing nothing but doing the procreating for as long as their bodies held together, because if you wanted any security should you survive, you needed to have enough children alive at the end of your procreative cycle that survivors would be able to take care of you in addition to their other responsibilities. Because when you lack such tokens, there's no handy way to monetize any skills not directly related to either surviving, or supporting the immediate surviving. "Ideas, inventions and contributions" that did not serve such people were simply ignored as useless.
Invention of money is one of the key breakthrough of human societies that allowed us to invent the "monetizing the future" aspect of work. Which meant that work that didn't have immediate impact on survival became doable without starving to death.
I'm still not going to call you back after fucking you in that thread. No matter how much you bitch about it.
>their waste product was O2
Great. Now note the ORDER:
>Basically a giant machine purpose built to generate and consume CO2.
Do you understand where you and original poster went wrong?
Exactly this. It's not that there's actual risk with sand. It's that economic opportunism by organised criminal networks can cause significant impact.
This applies to everything from stealing cabling for scrap metal to dumping toxic waste. Italian mafia for example is well known for doing the latter for profit.
It did. And then it was snuffed out by the extinction event that was caused by much more energetic lifeforms that outcompeted. If you don't win the competition for survival, you die.
That is the way of evolution. Always has been. Something that young city-dwelling folks need harsh reminder of, as life in many of the modern Western cities has allowed many to forget that the cycle keeps going, and doesn't care about their feelings. And it will keep going long after they are devoured by their own gut bacteria.
No, but considering the incredible amount of young people who seem to be genuinely indoctrinated to think that "scientific modelling" is the same thing as "truth", it may be a necessary reminder that modelling is one of the least accurate forms of scientific quest for better understanding of reality.
If you want to go that way, you got the wrong gas. It's a giant machine built to generate and consume O2. We can see this clearly in the oxidization of atmosphere when chlorophyll was introduced and spread among the early life forms on the planet, which enabled existence of essentially all other life (barring the few exceptions that exist in closed systems like subterranean volcanoes).
CO2 emissions by these life forms were utilization of the fact that atmosphere was now rich in O2. Your version puts the cart before the horse.
But do we all lift together?
Actual costs of operating an airline crashed in the last decade. Reminder: Analysts where talking about "when is oil barrel going to hit 200USD". One of the biggest costs of operating an airline is fuel.
Those that don't don't get to stick around long enough to bother all that many people.
Not really. Sand is a tiny fraction of cost of concrete. Crushed rock can't be all that much more expensive, seeing how it's used for concrete TODAY according to the story itself. It's just more expensive enough to use sand at this point in time.
Like I noted above, your knee jerk reaction is completely in line with how this kind of propaganda works. It primes you to think among the certain lines, catastrophising a tiny problem.
Young people are the target. The idea is that since young people are rather ignorant of how world works due to lack of experience, they can be primed with certain kinds of propaganda.
Most of us older folks already have enough experience to know that most of these hyperbolic "small problem we're going to sensationalize" claims are bogus. If price of sand goes up enough, we'll simply start using crushed rock instead. That's it.
Many countries outlaw this completely. See: scrip laws.
>Those incovinences are why user replacable batties went out of favor
A blatant lie. They went out of favour because they prolonged useful life of the most common entropic failure point in the phone. Inability to easily change batteries translates directly to more phones sold.
Considering that spare battery literally fits into your wallet in most cases, and popping a battery into a dock next to your phone to charge has been the simplest thing for decades, your bullshit is particularly egregious.
Not going to even bother with your whining about the rest. You're literally regurgitating a common marketing BS item that has been used to sell people more less capable and more expensive things for longer than I have been alive.
Two easy options to solve essentially all battery related smartphone problems:
1. Increase phone thickness, and use this change to increase battery volume.
2. Return to having a user replaceable battery that can be replaced in a few seconds by popping the rear panel off, taking the empty battery out, putting a full one in and closing the rear panel. As essentially all phones in 1990s allowed you to do.
And suddenly battery problems all go away. But with those changes, phone's effective life increases significantly, so sales will go down. Therefore, it will not happen.
You are that insane person who thinks that statement "thing x is not a thing x" is correct. Stop posting on slashdot and seek professional help.