High tariffs and other economic sanctions would essentially be just that, but like another comment said the west isn’t ready for it.

We’ve managed to entangle our economies too deeply with cheap Chinese production, so actually sanctioning them would be painful to say the least and they know it

Yeah to expand on this, in professional settings you’ll want a higher sampling frequency so you don’t end up with eg. aliasing, but for consumer use ≥44–48kHz sampling rate is pretty much pointless

Probably the latter. Seems like a cynical marketing ploy, really

Surprisingly enough, some essential oils do have research-based actual uses, such as topical antibacterials, antifungals and antiparasitics.

While there’s quite a bit of woo woo around them, there’s also a lot of interesting research into phytochemicals like essential oils. Same with a few other “plant-based” things like pine resin; there’s even a clinically tested pine resin salve that helps with wound healing and is used for treating difficult wounds in some hospitals in Finland.

The problem with essential oils is trying to filter out the snake oil claims from the actual research-based claims. Most vendors tend to have pretty, well, wild claims about what their products can do, so your best bet is scholar.google.com or www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and the like

So because VPN works for you, it’s impossible for it to not work for literally anybody else?

Ahh right yes, gotcha. I misunderstood you and thought you didn’t think the statistics were believable because they’re so skewed

How do you propose these “open source journalists” make a living? Corporate grants or straight-up corporate jobs just like a huge chunk of Linux development, landing us right back at square one, if not even somewhat behind it? At least independent media exists nowadays, but if the assumption is that all news has to be freely available, like acastcandream said that’d just lead to journalism being very effectively locked out as a career path for anyone who’s not independently wealthy or somehow able to make people actually donate or pay for a subscription despite the content being available for free – and that hasn’t worked out too well for most publishers so far.

no one ever tactfully includes ads

This is pretty patently hyperbole; I’ve run into many sites, including news, with non-intrusive ads.

Whether it’s class-based gatekeeping is another matter entirely. For-profit media employees have to eat too, and in the current economic system most can’t just give people access to content for free without any sort of monetization mechanism and with a voluntary subscription, because that’ll very often lead to income dropping off a cliff. Unfortunately people are very loath to pay for online services except for some more niche cases like the Fediverse where instances run on voluntary donations – although I’ve seen a couple of moderately popular instances struggling with upkeep being higher than what people are willing to donate (and it’s not just services either; open source developers face similar issues.) In some countries we at least have public broadcasting companies, although eg. here in Finland the current extremist right-wing government is looking to reduce its funding by quite a bit and possibly even entirely dismantle it if they get their way.

While I definitely agree that news should be available for free, railing against a for-profit publisher’s paywall is, frankly, myopic; like it or not, in the current system even content producers have to make a living. None of us really has a choice in whether we want to live in this system or not

Why does it seem statistically unlikely? If the assumption is that minorities are somehow being targeted, wouldn’t statistics like this be exactly what one would see?

If Trump wins, I figure it’s fairly likely that Russia will turn its sights towards attacking one of them smaller NATO members at its borders. Probably not a full-on invasion at least at first, but more of a test of whether Article 5 actually holds water or not – and with Trump in charge of the US, it’s unlikely he’d decide to stand up against Russia

Well, whatever the solution to this problem is, I’m fairly sure “put a blockchain on it” isn’t going to be it. Distributed ledgers do potentially have some uses, but using them to carry “proof of humanity” information doesn’t make much sense

Well, for many publishers the choice is either ads or paywalls. The fact that people feel entitled to get everything for free is a part of why things are going to shit, because ads bring with them a whole slew of perverse incentives (eg. optimizing for ad views instead of content quality)

Oh yeah it absolutely is bullshit, I’m not saying that. Or, well, it is true they’re likely collecting tons of data but it’s not like US companies don’t do it too and for reasons that are probably just as bad. This is why I tend to think that if you’re going to ban TikTok for collecting data, you can’t ignore Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Apple et al

Well, they’re totally different platforms . The rationale behind the TikTok ban (and I’m not saying I’m in favor of it or opposed to it) is that they can do spooky spooky things with your personal data and your attention – your opinions can be nudged once there’s enough data on you and your eyeballs are on the app half the day. And just to repeat, I’m not saying I agree with the ban (well, not with banning just TikTok anyhow…)

Temu and AliExpress have their own problems (like the absolutely mind boggling waste of finite resources) but nobody’s worried Temu is radicalizing boys or collecting tons of your personal data. And yes even Temu does collect data just like everyone else nowadays, but it’s a shopping site; compared to a social network there’s not all that much you can get out of your users or too many ways to really influence them outside of making them spend more money

Are we assuming that everyone is always going to be biking with no other options? I don’t think anyone is even advocating for that.

BUT WHAT IF YOUR LEGS ARE BROKEN? WHAT IF THERE’S A NUCLEAR WAR???

The people who seem to think that biking is an untenable option because you might have to very occasionally use other modes of transport make me wonder if that mindset comes from the fact that people feel that it’s normal to only use one mode of transport pretty much ever, because that’s how many people are with cars.

You’re just throwing a tantrum at this point

Sure, but it’s not a landline anymore

I live in an apartment building that was constructed in '22 and a landline wasn’t even an option anymore, it’s all just gigabit ethernet.

You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I’m quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don’t just respond based on this quote

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.

[…]

If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.

Yeah Frontier really dropped the ball with game design for E:D, the ratio of grind to content is just ridiculous.

I mean it’s definitely a fun game for a while and it gives space a sense of scale like nothing else, but everybody I personally know who’s tried it has ended up exactly where you and I did. It’s a mile wide and an inch deep, and sooner or later folks realize they’re just doing the same mission, seeing the same planets, visiting the same Guardian ruins, seeing the same spaceports, again and again.

The planetary procedural generation is somehow especially disappointing. While, yes, they’re all unique in a mathematical sense and the fact that it’s a 1:1 simulation of our galaxy based on real astrophysics is extremely cool, once you’ve seen one icy lump you’ve seen them all; the variety of planets you can actually land on is very small, they’re all barren and have no weather, no oceans or anything like that, just rock or ice. And if you’re playing as an explorer the “alien life” you can scan is limited to a handful of plants that all look identical except for some minor color variation. So the fact that the topography of this particular icy lump is different from that other icy lump is lost when that’s the only thing that distinguishes them