If we had sustainable practices, at least of 3rd of the people in the United States and Western Europe would have a standard of living similar to the people in 3rd world country. This is assuming we don’t compensate for things by exploiting more vulnerable populations.
I personally think this is a decent trade-off, but the people my country would end up exploiting would probably disagree.
I don’t see this information as being particu relevant. There are various boards and committees where half the people are government and half of them are from Google. From what I gather, Google more or less functions as the mass surveillance arm of the government, so a Government App serving this purpose would be redundant.
Reddit isn’t terrible when a user adjusts what they are suggested, but the system they use to ban people pretty much sucks.
If I respond to a user that is suggesting the unnecessary euthanasia of a relatively healthy cat with, “Great. Now it is okay to k*** relatively healthy cats. This is a positive development,” I will get a warning for promoting the abuse of animals. Four of these strikes over any period of time will lead to a permanent ban.
…it’s not sustainable. Since there isn’t any human oversight, I have to heavily censor what I say to avoid being banned from the platform. I’m using an actual example. My appeal was denied.
I just signed up, and it’s confusing. I used lemmy.world because it seemed like it was the only means to get my registration approved. It wasn’t clear whether or not this account can still view and interact with other “instances”, so I went with the website that had the largest userbase.
I wouldn’t want to shut down the simulation, but it would depend on the energy expenditure. A hospital could theoretically save more people if they allocated fifty million dollars per patient. A person’s right to life is contingent on the cost to maintain it.