That’s not an excuse to have a false and misleading headline.

What’s your gripe with more than three windows?

Window management is usually not a complaint of Windows…

Yeah, this author is the pop-sci / sci-fi media writer on Ars Technica, not one of the actual science coverage ones that stick to their area of expertise, and you can tell by the overly broad, click bait, headline, that is not actually supported by the research at hand.

The actual research is using limited LLM agents and only explores an incredibly limited number of interventions. This research does not remotely come close to supporting the question of whether or not social media can be fixed, which in itself is a different question from harm reduction.

I mean, no you don’t given that they’re being used in virtually every call centre and help desk these days.

At first it kind of seemed like Nadella might be a decent caring steward for Microsoft. Now it seems a lot more like he’s just relentlessly focused on profits at the cost of all else.

Microsoft eliminating independence from companies they bought has almost never gone well. I don’t understand why they keep trying.

The opening of the wikipedia article on feedback systems:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback

The notion of cause-and-effect has to be handled carefully when applied to feedback systems:

Simple causal reasoning about a feedback system is difficult because the first system influences the second and second system influences the first, leading to a circular argument. This makes reasoning based upon cause and effect tricky, and it is necessary to analyze the system as a whole.

Almost all real world systems are feedback systems, from biology, to politics and government, to interpersonal relations. Yet people’s instinct is almost always to try and reason through things using cause and effect when that’s often not helpful. When people realize this, they often say 'oh it’s a chicken and egg thing’s or ‘oh it’s impossible to say who did what’ and throw up their hands and give up. But it’s not impossible to analyze feedback systems, nor to figure out relative contributions to them, nor to figure out ways to break out of cycles. But you need to impartially examine the system as a whole, you can’t just try and play the blame game.

These days that’s more common on Lemmy.

https://lifteze.com/blogs/exercise-guides/how-cardio-helps-with-delayed-onset-muscle-soreness-doms

The best cure for doms is cardio.

No, they did not.

It’s not until the very last 12min of that podcast that they even talk about the question at play which is the sustainable carrying capacity of earth.

And they do not even remotely seriously cover that topic. They literally just mention that estimates are all over the place and one is a billion and then cherry pick the most optimistic one that says a trillion and literally do not remotely talk about why there are differences or what those estimates are measuring.

That’s 1.5hr of them covering the history of politicians talking about overpopulation and being like ‘haha Kissinger said it, therefore wrong’. It does not remotely cover an actual scientific understanding of what the earth’s sustainable carrying capacity is or even broach that question in a real way.

There’s a difference between people misusing overpopulation arguments to try and not change the political status quo, and actual scientific arguments about how much our behaviour impacts earth’s systems.

Right, but we could have the same number of people while being ecologically sustainable.

What are you basing that on?

We can live more sustainably than we do, but that doesn’t mean we can support this level of population sustainably on the earth’s systems.

And besides, what’s the alternative? So I think it’s ok to say it’s a good thing the population outlook is downward while recognizing we’ve still got problems

The alternative is to frankly acknowledge that the earth can’t sustain our current population levels, so policymakers and voters should be focused on increasing economic output with fewer people, and couples / families should try to not be maximalist when it comes to number of children.

Right now, most governments and billionaires don’t care and are encouraging population growth because more people means more workers to exploit which means they get richer before they die.

Do you have a source for that?

Literally just the amount of fertilizer that we need to produce to grow crops at our scale causes downstream environmental harms. I fail to see how you could sustain 7B people at anywhere close to a comfortable modern lifestyle with current technology.

Hell we’re projected to run out of copper before we can hit Net Zero. And more people means that we need more resources which means that we need more of everything.

A more just economic system doesn’t even necessarily reduce emissions. Yeah it’s wasteful when a billionaire takes a private jet, but it’s also incredibly wasteful when a million people install air conditioning. All else being equal, the latter is still a better use of money, but from the planet’s perspective it’s the same.

We are though, by any objective measure of our planet’s health and sustainability.

The only measure that you could look at that would suggest we weren’t overpopulated is the billionaire musk view of ‘but more indentured servants mean that I get richer’. But theres literal no way to look at our planet’s health or systems and our impact on them that wouldn’t lead you to think that 7B is sustainable.

That doesn’t mean we’re not overpopulated though.

We’re already over populated. We’re no longer about to drive off a cliff due to over population but we’re still continuously damaging the planet with the number of humans we have.

No, this is objectively wrong.

First of all, our current level of population is already overpopulated. We would do immense damage to the earth at our numbers regardless of how our society functioned. 7 billion indigenous people would also be making an enormous impact on the planet.

Second of all, we could never support 7 billion indigenous people. The literal only reason we can support our current population levels is because of industrial farming and our ability to make nitrogen enriched fertilizer.

Thirdly, there is nothing about capitalism that necessitates those thing, and nothing about communism or dictatorship or any other form of resource distribution that inherently avoids them.

Yeah it’s just a dumbly high stakes game.

TSMC is literally the shield that keeps Taiwan alive. An attack on TSMC foundries is an attack on the most critical supply chains of every western military in the world.

There is no chance they would risk their entire nation and business by getting into that big a fight when there’s a potential alternative, even if that alternative is subsidizing Intel’s failures.

Lol, I’m far from it, I just recognize idiocy when I see it.

Skill issue takes are dumb as fuck. It’s just republican personal responsibility takes using different language.

Intelligent people focus on producing systemically better outcomes.

For people who proclaim to care about critical active thought to think through the issue.

Lmao, how does noone see the irony of claiming to care about active thinking while boiling the issue down to an oversimplified, black and white, “all AI is bad and all uses of it are bad”.