STAR and RCV is growing among some states and counties. Have hope.

I recently watched this Thoughty2 video on YouTube that touched on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRN2p7sSL_Y

He essentially concludes that, at this point, technology has been able to mitigate the overpopulation fears that have existed up until now.

I full agree with you. Just because we can exist on the planet does not mean we’re better off. We’re already living with the consequences of over population.

The first thing we need to do is change our eating habits. The over-farming of land is increasing the need for chemicals to grow food - not to mention climate change. Bird flu is coming. The manner in which we have to raise animals is atrocious and leading to pandemics. Everything is full of antibiotics so farmers and ranchers don’t have to throw away “bad stock”. Which of course is due to the increasing need to produce more food.

I think the worst part is that when this is brought up people blame the corporations and the governments. They’re right that legislators should do more about this but, in America at least, the people are the one’s who are supposed to have the power. We’re supposed to make choices and cast votes for the world we want to live in. Instead, we keep making the same choices that give corporations more and more power.

America is torn between wanting all the freedom to make their own choices while complaining that government isn’t doing enough.

I fully agree with this. Someone else rightly pointed out that access to UPF doesn’t equate consumption. Why are people consuming UPFs? I would argue because of economic hardship (being overworked), lack of prioritizing healthy activities and social encounters, ignorance, misinformation, and habit and/or addiction.

I think eating good foods should be every humans number one priority. “You are what you eat” may be cliche but it’s true. Above all else, I think, people should be making time in their day to eat properly. Not enough people know how to cook using fresh ingredients. I constantly see claims that processed foods are so much cheaper than fresh foods. In my experience, it’s the opposite. I mean, I just made a whole stock pot full of vegetable soup for less than fifteen bucks and it’ll feed me for a week.

To your point, I think it’s true that adding exercise to your daily routine contributes to a more positive mindset. I don’t know if this is universal but when I’m depressed I eat more poorly. When I’m in a good mood, I eat more healthy. This would seem to be backed by biology and our innate need to consume sugars and fats for long term storage.

One of us is confused.

I’m saying that ultra processed foods - food that have had their nutrients stripped and replaced with sugars and fats and chemicals - are more readily available. We have an ancient instinct to store fats and sugars due to food shortages. Ultra processed foods are pleasurable to eat and our biology specifically deals with them by storing them as fat.

I have never heard anyone say it’s a mystery that we can’t eat like our ancestors. On the contrary, there are a hundred fad diets specifically designed to do just this. If you look into “blue zones”, you’ll find people living long healthy lifestyles free of ultra processed foods and eating and exercising more similarly to our ancient ancestors.

You’re trying to find a problem for your solution.

The obesity epidemic actually due to the increased availability of ultra processed foods.

Yeah - I don’t think a durable sneaker exists. I live in the city and do a lot of walking. I can get about 18 months from a better pair of running shoes. I really hate finding a pair I really like then a year or two later they no longer make anything like that shoe and the replacement is either lower quality or doesn’t fit as well.

Will definitely give Xeroshoes a close look. That turns out to be something like 50 miles a week over two years which is almost double what I would walk. Thanks!

How about sneakers?

This is something I’ve been spending a good amount of time thinking about. The fashion / textile industry has changed dramatically over the past fifteen+ years. Clothing has remained about the same price but, (see: shrinkflation) the quality of garments has decreased per dollar. It’s actually amazing that you can walk into a Target and spend $25 on a really decent t-shirt and a half-dozen pairs of socks.

How long your garments last depends largely on your activity level and how often you wear and wash them. It also depends on what materials they’re made out of. Fabrics made from plastics (practically everything) are not going to last as long as those made from natural fibers - assuming they’re cared for the same way. A lot of cheaper garments are made with thinner fabrics or assembled with poor stitching.

So, where you get your clothing, what you spend on it, how you maintain it, are all going to contribute to how long it lasts.

Honestly, I work from home so sometimes I’m wearing the same clothes for two to three days if the weather’s cool and I’m not seeing anyone. These clothes, regardless of material, are going to wear out sooner than the nicer clothing I wear out of the house and on weekends.

Any time I buy new clothing, I check to see what materials are used. I try to get stuff that’s made of 100% cotton or wool or canvas, etc. I’ve been getting my t-shirts from Solid State in NC and most of my sock are made from hemp or alpaca wool. I have one pair of decent Levis jeans that I’ve only washed once that are over ten years old.

Upfront, I’m spending more. In the long run, I might spend about the same in total on clothing but I’m producing much less waste along the way. I rather spend more money on something decent I can wear more often and have a smaller wardrobe.

To answer the question - if I were to lose 25lbs to fit in some older clothing I still have, the rest of my life, easily.

The only exception to this is shoes. I go through shoes way too fast (<3years) and they’re all trash now.

I have one that claims “Circulates the air 1x per hour in 743 square foot rooms and 4.8x per hour in 153 sq. ft rooms”. My room is 180 square feet (12x15).

The concept itself doesn’t make sense to me. You’ve got a single box that both sucks in air and blows it out. It would seem to me that this just creates vortex around the box itself with some minimal air movement in the rest of the area.

A proper air purification system would need to be part of your home’s central HVAC system where it’s been engineered to suck in the air from one side of a room, filter it through the system, then blow it back out on the other side of the room. And / or several smaller air purifiers strategically placed within a room.

I’ve done a bit of searching and surprisingly have not been able to find a rally good study. This would seem easy enough to qualify with some knowledge of fluid mechanics. I found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NinsW8f2ABk The room is about a third the size of my room and the purifier is about 50% larger. The in/out design of this device is dramatically different from mine. I have a hunch that the consumer (Amazon) air purifier market is mostly garbage.

I’m constantly cleaning. I live alone in a 100+ year old building. It’s no exaggeration to say that there’s a coating of dust moments after I get done dusting.

I use a microfiber duster for daily cleaning and a heavily diluted mixture of water, vinegar, and soap for deeper cleaning.

The only thing I can think of, but haven’t tried, to minimize dust accumulation is to run a humidifier. That should theoretically give the dust particles something to cling onto and be less prone to becoming airborne as you move about. Perhaps a daily water misting from a spray bottle could work - I should give that a try.

I have an air purifier in my bedroom. It doesn’t do very much. I don’t really understand how they’re supposed to work anyway. There’s no way it’s going to suck in dust from the other side of the room. I wonder sometimes if it actually makes things worse. I use it mostly for the white noise to sleep with.

Respectfully, you’ve asked the wrong question. The process to create AI started decades ago (arguably, longer).

…capable of rational thinking, that is creative, that it’s self aware and have consciousness.

As you’ve described it, consider how this is any different than human procreation.

The answer is the ability for a ‘computer’ to have instantaneous access and ability to process the world’s information.

Assuming a sentient “cyber” AI is inevitable and you’re wondering about our “own will and desires”, the question should be, who do you think should create the rules for AI to ensure it’s making the right choices today and beyond the time of our species.

Or, to put it another way, who gets to be God and Moses?

“Good enough”, Demand, and Scale.

The contractor grade stuff is designed to be durable and good enough. Most people will find it attractive and suitable for their esthetic. Seasonal re-designs are safe by following design trends established at trade shows. Contractors can rely on the product not failing so they continue to buy it for all their projects.

The fancy stuff is often made for different countries and can have different parts and specifications. If more (assuming we’re talking about America here) people wanted this stuff, the manufacturing would increase and the costs would come down. However, a lot of times the reason people buy the expensive stuff is specifically because it’s bespoke and “hand crafted”. If a Gucci bag cost $50, it wouldn’t be worth the name.

You need demand to bring down costs. This increases the scale required and ability to afford better technology to make more.

The tools needed to manufacturer something at large scale are expensive. If you house your own tools, how are you going to buy those tools if you don’t have money to buy them? If you’re going to contract manufacturing, why would a manufacturer make you something for little money when they can use their facility to make exponentially more widgets for another company? Just swapping out a die on a machine costs money. They’re not going to disrupt existing manufacturing for a few hundred widgets.

LOL any blog is going to have clickbait. Even most mainstream news is largely made up of clickbait.

Are you looking for Apple news, Apple rumors, or some website constantly trying to sell you something via affiliate links?

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/

https://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=apple

https://arstechnica.com/apple/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/search-results?q=apple

https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=apple

I just searched for “submit short stories” and this was the first three results.

https://thewritelife.com/where-to-submit-short-stories/

https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/short-story/where-to-submit-short-stories/

https://writers.com/short-story-submissions

I can imagine people being so distraught and apathetic that their addiction feels like the only thing that gives them purpose in life. I think that’s why a lot of people find addiction - to make up for what they don’t have. Or, in the context of younger people with phones, they just don’t know a world without it.

If you live alone, have no kids or pets, and all you do after work is play video games or doom scroll or watch porn; as long as your bills are being paid, is this an “addiction”? Are these the kinds of people you’ve met?

I think we’re only just beginning to see the ramifications of phone / social media addiction and our disinterest or fear in engaging with others in real life. Our devices are giving us all this unnatural dopamine drip we otherwise can’t find in the wild. Is this an addiction and if so, is their reliance on screens going to become a problem as these young people face adulthood? Or is adulthood going to change for them? Not to mention how my 70+ year old mother is 100% addicted to the dings from her phone.

“Addicted” means: exhibiting a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity.

If something is chronically prohibiting you from living a normal healthy life, that would be considered an addiction. If you have set times or you have the ability to responsibly engage with something without it interfering with other tasks or obligations, it likely is not an addiction. If you continue to do something which is more often detrimental to your well being yet you feel you’re getting a rush by doing it, that is likely an addiction.

No. No one is asking if talking to friends or reading the news is an addiction. However, if you find that you are engaging in these activities as a way to absolve or distract yourself from other obligations, you may fit the definition of being addicted.

This really raises the moral question of what are people supposed to do with their time. If you have the means to care for yourself, who’s to judge you for what you do with your time? If you choose to not have a family or not participate in your community or give back to the world in any way, is an addiction really a problem? If you’re choosing to not have a healthy productive life, is an addiction to drugs or gambling or sex or social media detrimental to anything?

I’ve had Verizon Fios for about twelve years. They’ve actually lowered my bill three times and increased my speed once without me asking. That’s why I haven’t switched and will always seek them out in the future.

Have you considered Apple’s Support site?

https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/get-started-with-your-mac-mchl3a2c2cb0/15.0/mac/15.0

https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/switched-from-windows-to-mac-mchlbc684e49/15.0/mac/15.0

There’s also https://www.youtube.com/applesupport

Generally, I’d be cautious with what you share for this sort of guidance. The majority of content related to “Using A Mac” is going to be created by people who are already entrenched in the ecosystem. They can sometimes speak over or around the heads of people just getting started.

Axios
Drop Site (Substack)
Poynter
The Intercept
Truthout

My decision to leave was due to the prevalence of misinformation and / or entirely unrelated comments being upvoted to the top. Fuck that place. It’s just an alternate to Facebook now.

Edit: I just think it’s funny that people left because of the API policy. Not to diminish anyone’s preferences but Reddit’s policy change was actually to retain users, run more ads, and probably increase algorithmic engagement and sell content to LLMs. People left as a protest with the belief that it was run by, for, and of the people and that Reddit didn’t understand its core user base. Reddit has only continued to increase its user base and revenue. I’d venture to guess that the core users leaving was actually a benefit to Reddit. Their departure just made it easier for Reddit to accomplish their goals.