I mean, in the 19th century London was the biggest city in the world, and like most cities was very progressive. If you look back now and judge from our current lens then it looks really conservative but people in the streets campaigned to end slavery, and the British government outlawed slavery across the whole empire and used their very large and impressive navy to enforce these laws. Just because some private individuals made vast profits off of selling slaves to the US doesn’t mean it was legal or even a popular thing.

Why would datacenters be buying consumer grade cards? Nvidia has the A series cards for enterprise that are basically identical to consumer ones but with features useful for enterprise unlocked.

Look, I love having a blu ray player embedded into my console. But the fact of the matter is, a lot of these consoles have decently high end blu ray players in, and they are expensive. Consider the fact that low end consoles such as Xbox Series S are probably losing money for every sale. Asking them to tack on another feature means they either increase the price of the console or lose even more money on every console sale.

You should have the option to select a digital or a disc version of a console. Maybe even be able to pay extra to upgrade the blu ray player inside your console to a higher quality or more capable one for those who want them.

TLDR: the wolves developed agriculture! Wow how cool is that! A wolf farming potatoes. We really do live in the future!

Make sure to sign the petition at the bottom of the mozilla report.

It’s because americans are good at capitalism. Americans are so much more willing to put up capital to invest in a start up. In Europe investors are so much more risk averse, that they never hit any big wins. It also makes companies list on the american exchanges over european equivelant ones.

deleted by creator

Erm, not in this case though. UBS was forced by the swiss government to buy Credit Suisse. Guess which company the 3000 people getting laid off worked for before the forced purchase?

This is true, in reality it’s what has to be done, and it will be against the will of the people, it would be undemocratic and would require agreement on both sides of the political spectrum. When one side makes unpopular but necessary change to regulation to reduce our environmental impact, you have to pray that come next election, your hard work isn’t immediately undone after almost certainly being voted out.

People generally aren’t unreasonable, adding additional regulation on say oil producers is fine for people in rich nations, people who can afford (begrudgingly) to pay more money for their petrol. But the only way to make such a change fair is to increase the amount of aid sent to lower income countries. When the price per litre of petrol in Kenya is about €1.2 and the average income is €2000 it becomes unfair to give them higher prices for necessities without also loading these developing nations with significant amounts of financial aid. Oil and gas is the ladder which developed nations climbed to become who they are to day, and it is the same ladder which we need to kick down behind us to prevent or limit climate change. We can not leave those behind us ladderless however. We must use money to help them reach our levels.

And money comes from taxes, and taxes come from people, and when people in these developed nations look at the state of their country, large expenses, large mortgage payments or rent, increased price of fuel increased price of meat and dairy. Most will not understand why it is necessary to also start sending hundreds of billions of dollars to poorer countries. You either need to educate the general population to a level where they can understand what must be done to save ourselves. Or you must do it against the will of the people, undemocratically.

I understand that this comment may be slightly irrelevant but it came to my mind and I thought it had to be voiced. If you can see any way in which the logic is not sound in my comment here please let me know and correct me. Thank you in advance.

You can get high quality clothing for much much less than these prices you have said. Solovair boots are about €200, and they’re still pretty expensive for high quality stuff. €80 for a high quality charles tyrwhitt shirt. It doesn’t even need to be specifically branded as high quality, but when you are browsing in whatever store, check the thickness of the teeshirt or shirt, check the strength of the trousers, think about how easy it would be to repair if it broke. Last year I bought a thick plain teeshirt from H&M for €8, I have worn it a lot and it shows no signs of wear. You just have to be conscious about what it is you are buying.

This is true, but when 2000 people find out that the price of milk and cheese they love so dearly is going to have to go up, a perhaps decently sized portion of those 2000 would protest and fight to stop the regulation that causes them to have to change their diet. It’s incredibly difficult to change the way people think in a democracy. The only democratic way to make the change we need is to already have more than 50% of the people on board with the proposed regulation.

I wonder how many of the large meat and dairy companies will still be such huge polluters if everyone ate a vegetarian or even vegan diet? I wonder how much less pollution fast fashion producers create if everyone prioritised high quality clothing that lasts a long time over cheap clothing that doesn’t even last a year? I wonder how much pollution oil and gas producers would make if everyone decided to stop using gas boilers and petrol cars and taking long polluting flights?

To argue that we can’t affect the amount of pollution going in to the world makes someone else less likely to try. If we all do our part the companies are forced to change, not via laws and regulations, but by the fact that they will lose money if they don’t. The fact of the matter is, most people say they care about climate change and the environment, but when you ask them to give up their highly polluting luxuries, they suddenly don’t care as much. And obviously there are exceptions to this, you and I for example probably care about the environment and actually act in a way as to reduce our own footprints. But the average person does not care enough.

Yes they were making a joke severien

It’s unlikely to cause any kind of large black market. In the UK, energy drinks have been restricted to 16+ for a few years now. People don’t mind off brand vapes or cigarettes (for some reason), but people absolutely care about the brand of energy drink they are buying. Kids especially, I imagine most only buy them to look cool, and if no one knows you are drinking a “cool” energy drink then why bother?

Wait until he finds out that humans have been drinking alcohol recreationally for at least 8000 years. I reckon heaven would be really rather empty if only people who never drank any alcohol were allowed in

No you’re good. I can see it being like a way to try and verify where the cheese you’re buying comes from but embedding it in the rind seems a bit excessive when you could just use a tag with a private key signature on it that comes with the cheese.

Out of curiosity, do you know any dishes that use a sauce made of parmegianno regianno rind that someone who is a beginner-amateur (at best) at cooking could make? Or are these dishes quite complicated generally? I have always just thrown out the rind so finding out you can use it to make sauces and it’s the most flavourful part is life changing for me.

Very interesting, i didn’t know that.

The chip is in the rind which you don’t eat. And the chip is food safe anyway, if someone was to eat the rind.

Doesn’t the article only mention the banning of disposable vapes? Did you know there is enough lithium in all the disposable vapes used in a year, to make 1200 electric car batteries. Per year. In the UK alone.

Because alcohol is generally well regulated, and even regular flavoured vapes are poorly regulated.