A desktop that's oriented toward people with a brain, rather than chasing after the swipe-and-wipe infotainment suckers.
Myself, I expect to keep living inside emacs using the icewm window manager for some time to come-- whenever I look at a newer window manager I find they've completely ignored keyboard commands--
(And the idea that we're going to simplify the package manager landscape by adding new ones is pretty funny...)
So there you are at the UN, someone asks you "where are we going to put all these people?", now what do you say?
Ummm.... anywhere in the 90% of the land mass of the worlds which
are currently not very populated?
Great so we'll give, say, half of Arizona to the nation of the
Marshall Islands. The present inhabitants of Arizona won't have
any problem with that, right? And there won't be any difficulties with
simultaneously relocating most of the population of Los Angeles in
that region, right?
I don't say how, I don't know how, but I'm pretty sure it's the best one.
I have the answer, but I just don't know what it is.
It's not at all clear that a massive die-back would actually solve any problems to speak of, because human beings aren't just mouths to feed, they're hands and brains--
If you're thinking "boy we could use less resources if only we kill those poors", maybe a more effective solution would be to kill the people using the most resources, which are not the poor people...
The Best Solution most of us have is to let the entire world turn into the "first world" (already well underway), let rising living standards and personal choice restrain birthrates (pretty much "just happens"), then we figure out how to generate a bunch of clean energy-- which we already know how to do, we just need to convince the anti-nuclear activists that they're the creationists of the left, and somehow pry the world's economy out of the grip of the fossil fuel industry--
And there we hit another wall of practical knowledge. I'll get back to you.
Which of the above goals can floating cities do, that non-floating cities can't do?
They can house refugee populations without symbolically infringing on the territory of an already existing nation.
These existing nations with plenty of dry land are expected to be dealing with their own problems of moving everyone from their coastal cities up to that dry land.
As is not unusual, slashdot is missing the point. Here it is from the first paragraph:
By the middle of the next century, many of the world's major cities will be flooded, and in some cases, entire island nations will be underwater. The people who live there will have to relocate. But to where?
Does anyone at all see the point of this yet? You've got large populations (including entire small nations) living in places that will likely be underwater in not centuries, but decades. Progress on restraining global warming has been nil, research into amelioration techniques gives people the heebie-jeebies (for good reasons), displaced populations on the move are already creating anti-immigrant backlash and electing right-wing bastards who are not exactly expected to solve any real problems-- they do better making problems worse and blaming the other guys-- So there you are at the UN, someone asks you "where are we going to put all these people?", now what do you say?
Floating habitats may indeed turn out to be go nowhere, but research into the feasibility of floating habitats is pretty much a no-brainer.
The girl/boy learns something wondrous that might be important
He learns how to spell "steak".
Or maybe he learns that the floating vegan cities were intended to siphon off the entire left-wing population as part of a voluntary gerrymandering scheme to completely neutralize their voting privileges. The outraged vegans rebel and sail to Virginia Beach, where they're new soy burger chain is a big hit.
Well if they are anchored within commuting distance of major coastal cities then labor could be their primary export.
I've actually been expecting someone to build a floating housing complex out in the Hudson river, one of these days. If you could moor it to an artificial island with subway access, I'd think the money would be there.
Of course, kicking poor people out of the Western edge of Brooklyn is even cheaper, but I imagine they're about done with that.
I did some web searches the other day and I've concluded that you can find a Torvalds
quote to the effect that "____ is a disease" for most values of "____".
I have a contrary opinion to what happened with usenet-- many
people who were around at the time started saying they gave up on
it "because of spam", but my own experience was that a decent
newsreader and minimal management of kill files kept my encounters
with spam to a minimum, and the amount of trouble we've had since
then with spam in other forums (email, blog comments, etc) has
been way worse than what usenet was subjected to.
I think it's a lot simpler than that: when the web became big,
usenet stopped seeming so bright and shiney, and everyone got
distracted by the new latest thing-- after usenet traffic dropped
below a critical level, it stopped seeming like a great place
to go to discuss anything.
I have about 2500 friends on Facebook (all IRL friends)
Oh, bullshit. No one can manage that many friends "IRL".
It's way more likely you don't have a single real friend and you don't know what I'm
talking about.
I've been saying for some time that in a world where vinyl LPs can
make a come-back there's still some hope for web standards.
My prediction (and hope) is a trend for retro no-javascript web sites.
I think the problem with what we call "social media" is not that
it uses "real names", but rather that it promises real identities,
but is unable or unwilling to actually deliver-- hence the farms
of shills and jammers that infest all public discussions at present.
What we really need is actual verified IDs combined with
TOS that (at a minimum) demand disclosure of conflicts of interest
with severe penalities if any violation is proven.
But that won't get you a solution to the numbers problem--
clearly we also are always going to need some form of curation
and moderation that attempts to filter for the good stuff.
Radically democratic anarchic access of all to all clearly doesn't
scale real well.
Yup. A few years back, a friend of mine lost a hell of a lot of original
photos because he thought flickr was a good place to keep them.
On the other hand, over roughly the same time period, I've lost
about a dozen photos in a silly disk management mistake.
As other people have noted though, stashing things in two places,
local and remote, is likely to be even better. The next question though
is "the cloud" better than, say, "an ftp site".
That would be great if Wikipedia had any way to find out who was being paid to edit it. As far as I can see, they have no way to do that.
And the obvious conclusion is that they have to know who's editing, they need to start using verified IDs with, at a minimum a demand to disclose conflict- of-interest.
You can't have accountability without knowing who own's the account.
Because our corporate overlords have our best interests at heart, and no one has ever earned a salary doing something nefarious.
It's been a stunningly obvious problem with wikipedia-- THE_TOY_WEB--
all along, but they've somehow managed to keep their heads in the sand for
decades.
You would not "assume good faith" if there were ten dollars on the table, so there's no way you would try to work that way if you were doing anything at all of importance--
like, oh say, hypothetically, running information infrastructure crucicial for
the functioning of a modern democratic industrial state.
You have my sympathies on this one, but actually we're fucked. The jamming has been successful, nothing is happening fast enough to really get emissions under control, and when Miami is underwater you're going to see a panic to Do Something about this problem, and then we're going to do some of the quickest and dirtiest shit you can imagine (like, think blowing sulfides into the upper atmosphere with nuclear explosions).
No one sane wants to roll the dice on geoengineering to ameliorate global warming, but really that is what we're going to do, and it would be a good idea to start doing some research on the techniques now, in hopes of dodging some of the worst ideas.
I would be happy to be proved wrong about this prediction, but what we're actually seeing is the right is still in denial about the problem and the left is in denial about the solutions (we can do it all with renewables! In fact the problems have already been solved! Just sit back and watch the juggernaut of green technology conquer the world!) and the middle of the road folks aren't paying any attention because gas prices are down, so obviously there's no problems anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
A desktop that's oriented toward people with a brain, rather than chasing after the swipe-and-wipe infotainment suckers.
Myself, I expect to keep living inside emacs using the icewm window manager for some time to come-- whenever I look at a newer window manager I find they've completely ignored keyboard commands--
(And the idea that we're going to simplify the package manager landscape by adding new ones is pretty funny...)
And so, all you kids studying for exams should try my new Thinking Cap (TM [1]) just to make sure you have all the bases covered. Only $29.99.
[1] I'm sure this is trademarked, but probably by someone else.
Great so we'll give, say, half of Arizona to the nation of the Marshall Islands. The present inhabitants of Arizona won't have any problem with that, right? And there won't be any difficulties with simultaneously relocating most of the population of Los Angeles in that region, right?
So are you on the side of "let them all die" or "let's kill them all off"?
Or maybe, forced sterilization?
I'm on the side of generate a lot of clean energy plus efficiency improvements.in how we use it.
Dikes leak. There are limits
Some places they can't work at all. Miami, in particular evidently is built on porus rock.
No one is going to build a wall around the Marshal Islands.
I have the answer, but I just don't know what it is.
It's not at all clear that a massive die-back would actually solve any problems to speak of, because human beings aren't just mouths to feed, they're hands and brains--
If you're thinking "boy we could use less resources if only we kill those poors", maybe a more effective solution would be to kill the people using the most resources, which are not the poor people...
The Best Solution most of us have is to let the entire world turn into the "first world" (already well underway), let rising living standards and personal choice restrain birthrates (pretty much "just happens"), then we figure out how to generate a bunch of clean energy-- which we already know how to do, we just need to convince the anti-nuclear activists that they're the creationists of the left, and somehow pry the world's economy out of the grip of the fossil fuel industry--
And there we hit another wall of practical knowledge. I'll get back to you.
They can house refugee populations without symbolically infringing on the territory of an already existing nation.
These existing nations with plenty of dry land are expected to be dealing with their own problems of moving everyone from their coastal cities up to that dry land.
As is not unusual, slashdot is missing the point. Here it is from the first paragraph:
Does anyone at all see the point of this yet? You've got large populations (including entire small nations) living in places that will likely be underwater in not centuries, but decades. Progress on restraining global warming has been nil, research into amelioration techniques gives people the heebie-jeebies (for good reasons), displaced populations on the move are already creating anti-immigrant backlash and electing right-wing bastards who are not exactly expected to solve any real problems-- they do better making problems worse and blaming the other guys-- So there you are at the UN, someone asks you "where are we going to put all these people?", now what do you say?
Floating habitats may indeed turn out to be go nowhere, but research into the feasibility of floating habitats is pretty much a no-brainer.
As always, the tremendous vision on display in slashdot comments impresses greatly.
https://www.homedit.com/22-mos...
https://offgridworld.com/10-pr...
Myself, I don't understand who wants to live in the cardboard-stucko condos they've been building for decades, but evidently some people do.
He learns how to spell "steak".
Or maybe he learns that the floating vegan cities were intended to siphon off the entire left-wing population as part of a voluntary gerrymandering scheme to completely neutralize their voting privileges. The outraged vegans rebel and sail to Virginia Beach, where they're new soy burger chain is a big hit.
bigpat wrote:
I've actually been expecting someone to build a floating housing complex out in the Hudson river, one of these days. If you could moor it to an artificial island with subway access, I'd think the money would be there.
Of course, kicking poor people out of the Western edge of Brooklyn is even cheaper, but I imagine they're about done with that.
I did some web searches the other day and I've concluded that you can find a Torvalds quote to the effect that "____ is a disease" for most values of "____".
Not that I think he's wrong about those socmeds.
I have a contrary opinion to what happened with usenet-- many people who were around at the time started saying they gave up on it "because of spam", but my own experience was that a decent newsreader and minimal management of kill files kept my encounters with spam to a minimum, and the amount of trouble we've had since then with spam in other forums (email, blog comments, etc) has been way worse than what usenet was subjected to.
I think it's a lot simpler than that: when the web became big, usenet stopped seeming so bright and shiney, and everyone got distracted by the new latest thing-- after usenet traffic dropped below a critical level, it stopped seeming like a great place to go to discuss anything.
Oh, bullshit. No one can manage that many friends "IRL". It's way more likely you don't have a single real friend and you don't know what I'm talking about.
I've been saying for some time that in a world where vinyl LPs can make a come-back there's still some hope for web standards. My prediction (and hope) is a trend for retro no-javascript web sites.
I think the problem with what we call "social media" is not that it uses "real names", but rather that it promises real identities, but is unable or unwilling to actually deliver-- hence the farms of shills and jammers that infest all public discussions at present.
What we really need is actual verified IDs combined with TOS that (at a minimum) demand disclosure of conflicts of interest with severe penalities if any violation is proven.
But that won't get you a solution to the numbers problem-- clearly we also are always going to need some form of curation and moderation that attempts to filter for the good stuff. Radically democratic anarchic access of all to all clearly doesn't scale real well.
When investigation is expensive, you try to compensate for that with severe penalties in the agreement.
Yup. A few years back, a friend of mine lost a hell of a lot of original photos because he thought flickr was a good place to keep them.
On the other hand, over roughly the same time period, I've lost about a dozen photos in a silly disk management mistake.
As other people have noted though, stashing things in two places, local and remote, is likely to be even better. The next question though is "the cloud" better than, say, "an ftp site".
The post uses the phrase "guessing", is at best speculative, and is clearly doing so in a biased direction.
My guess is this hired "editor" didn't five a damn about truth-- he's a bleeding lawyer for god's sake.
And the obvious conclusion is that they have to know who's editing, they need to start using verified IDs with, at a minimum a demand to disclose conflict- of-interest.
You can't have accountability without knowing who own's the account.
Because our corporate overlords have our best interests at heart, and no one has ever earned a salary doing something nefarious.
It's been a stunningly obvious problem with wikipedia-- THE_TOY_WEB-- all along, but they've somehow managed to keep their heads in the sand for decades.
You would not "assume good faith" if there were ten dollars on the table, so there's no way you would try to work that way if you were doing anything at all of importance-- like, oh say, hypothetically, running information infrastructure crucicial for the functioning of a modern democratic industrial state.
You have my sympathies on this one, but actually we're fucked. The jamming has been successful, nothing is happening fast enough to really get emissions under control, and when Miami is underwater you're going to see a panic to Do Something about this problem, and then we're going to do some of the quickest and dirtiest shit you can imagine (like, think blowing sulfides into the upper atmosphere with nuclear explosions).
No one sane wants to roll the dice on geoengineering to ameliorate global warming, but really that is what we're going to do, and it would be a good idea to start doing some research on the techniques now, in hopes of dodging some of the worst ideas.
I would be happy to be proved wrong about this prediction, but what we're actually seeing is the right is still in denial about the problem and the left is in denial about the solutions (we can do it all with renewables! In fact the problems have already been solved! Just sit back and watch the juggernaut of green technology conquer the world!) and the middle of the road folks aren't paying any attention because gas prices are down, so obviously there's no problems anywhere.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Enoug...
Musk fanboys are a strange breed.
That's something like how I switch between workspaces on my desktop: "Control Alt 1" goes to the first one, and so on.
And "Control Alt ESC" pops up a menu of all open windows in all workspaces, from which I can cursor up and down and select one with Return.
Note: icewm on linux.
And, me, I use "C-x `" to cycle through error messages and grep hits, but this is because I run emacs where it's bound to the "next-error" command.