It’s impossible to operate satellites if you need approval from every single country you might fly over.
1,537 karma · joined January 26, 2020
The relevant term is „energy intensity“, measuring how much energy is needed per unit of GDP. It has been improving for quite a while now, see, for example https://www.aceee.org/blog/2015/12/what-energy-intensity-and...
What the EU privacy push has created is an incentive for ad networks to improve. What we are already seeing are strategies that preserve both privacy as well as a revenue stream using, for examples, cohorts or that strategy (whose name I seem to have forgotten) of adding some randomness to raw data that cancels out at the learning stage.
These aren’t perfect, but it is an improvement.
Yeah, Bitcoin has really held up great in value in comparison to euros or dollar… it’s only down 70 % on top of those currencies‘ inflation.
If it’s so great, why is nobody using it?
If people are so easily fooled into MITM attacks, why do they not happen?
Have you used Apple Pay? Works quite well.
There may be something in newer legislation which has made data portability a priority. And Apple has just changed its practice, but due only to very specific pressure.
So I’d say this is rather pathetic, but not illegal.
I'll take the Euro over any cryptocurrency any day, thanks.
Whatever the merits, the most salient point on the issue is that nuclear power, by and large, doesn't matter. It's below 5 % of total now and was at about 15 % at its highest.
As to #2, “fun” is possibly the real reason people want it, it that’s just not a very convincing argument. There are also many people who want a speed limit because they experience a different emotion, namely fear.
As to #3, I don’t know what your argument is? People might pay for gas, but the cost is nowhere near enough to cover the externalities.
#5: that data just isn’t available, I guess?
[0]: https://deletionpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&offset...
As a casual user, you will, by definition, tend to see the most-trafficked, well-maintained pages. Deleted pages, as a general rule, are not those. Your impression of the level of quality that can be achieved is completely off. This is also true if you read a lot in some specialized subject that has a small, but active and productive community (some pop culture fandoms, for example).
Leave the beaten paths at your own risk, especially if it concerns anything that has small communities with differences of opinion. Like foreign wars.
Example: this page about some soldier in the Balkan wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milan_Tepić&oldid...
This isn't the worst I've seen, but something I remembered because I tried to clean it up recently. It includes a long discussion that has little to do with the subject, is obviously the product of a tug-of-war between opposing POVs and fails to present the subject in a way that would allow the reader to come to any conclusion. Or, at least, I still have no idea if this guy is a war criminal, hero, or both.
And this is the stuff that doesn't get deleted.
The other standard is obviously self-serving content, i. e. articles written by the subject or the subject's employees/PR people etc. There is simply no way to deal with the fundamental problem that an article's subject always has far more interest in an article than any random editor without limiting the scope to subjects that attract at least a few interested editors without a conflict of interest.
Sure, it’ll all adjust, just not at the timescale necessary.
On a less violent note, every country has seen birth rates decline as it became richer. Modern western societies only grow through immigration, and even many countries in, say, Africa, have seen drastic declines. Humanity doesn’t expand until it unavoidably runs out of food, that’s a 19th century idea.