The people I’m talking about would struggle with Reddit, let alone Lemmy. To paraphrase Lt. Commander Nella Daren; 'You’re more online than you think you are."

What would TNG’s first season have if it was standalone and came out today

I can’t believe nobody said Star Trek. In the 70s you had reruns of the original series and the animated series short run. TMP didn’t come around until the end of the decade. I wasn’t there, but I imagine a 70s trekky would be damn grateful to have all the Trek we have today and they’d probably even love Academy (All the older not chronically online fans I know rave about it).

Edit: regardless of your personal opinion on nu trek, the answer fits the question. A trek fan from the 70s would be blown away by having 13 series and 14 movies available to watch on demand, plus books, games, etc.

Can’t wait for this revolution in wildlife photography.

Just gonna leave this here.

Spirit.airlines

But yeah if you like getting nickel and dimed for standard features Slate looks great.

All evidence aside from the evidence you supplied that said the opposite? I mean really, ALL evidence? All of it? But you can supply none? But it’s ALL the evidence? Right. You are literally just saying things. You could fit every single human being on earth into one metropolitan area. It’s our behavior that is unsustainable, not our population. Go lick a boot.

The reality of ignoring all evidence to validate wishing you could kill most people for no reason? And I’m the one living in a fairy tale? Okay.

Reality is malleable. Sure, the current circumstances of how resources are divided and used is reality. The current population is reality. We are both discussing ways in which our reality can be transformed to the benefit of all. Your suggested path involves the death of billions of people, while my suggested path involves some people having slightly less exorbitant lifestyles. Your suggested path is not only extreme, but it wouldn’t even work according to the very scholars you are citing. THAT is reality.

Did you actually read what you provided? It’s really not the defense of your point that you are making it out to be. Lead author, Corey Bradshaw (Who also co-authored Human Population Reduction is Not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems), argues that our current consumption system is unsustainable. I couldn’t agree more!

The 2.5 billion figure cited within is not some immutable physical limit on the number of human bodies Earth can contain. The authors explicitly acknowledge that a “sustainable” population depends on things like standard of living, economics, social conditions, and resource consumption. Their ecological-footprint estimate of 2.35 billion specifically assumes today’s average material standard of living and current consumption distribution, including the enormous consumption of the wealthiest people.

You’re taking a model of how many people our planet can sustainably support under particular socioeconomic and consumption conditions and treating it as evidence that the people themselves are the fundamental problem. That’s not what the evidence shows, though. Not even the evidence you yourself brought to the table, sorry!

If your only problem is that you want more resources available for yourself, I can see how you’d come to that conclusion, but you’re wrong. It wouldn’t solve the underlying problems, and in fact it would create a whole set of new ones. Modern civilization depends heavily on economies of scale, and your magic finger snap does nothing to change how resources are produced, distributed, or consumed.

You’re also assuming that every human consumes resources at roughly the same rate. They don’t. Not even close. A tiny fraction of humanity consumes vastly more resources than billions of other people. Your finger snap doesn’t address that inequality at all. The same people and systems that concentrate resources now would simply have an even larger pool of resources to hoover up afterward. Then what? Snap your fingers again?

And follow the logic to its conclusion. If reducing humanity to 100 million “solves” problems because fewer people are consuming resources and competing for them, then 1 million should be even better. Five thousand better still. Ultimately, zero humans means zero poverty, zero war, zero homelessness, zero human carbon emissions, and zero human suffering. Problem solved!

Except obviously it isn’t, because eliminating the people who experience a problem is not the same thing as solving the problem for those people.

We don’t have billions of people living in poverty because there simply isn’t enough stuff on Earth to go around. We have enormous disparities in who controls resources and who gets to consume them. Fantasizing about eliminating most of humanity while leaving that system completely intact makes you a stooge for the oligarchs.

If I could snap my fingers and have people wake up from the capitalist propaganda they’ve been force-fed their whole lives, I would. Population is not the issue, it’s a deflection.

Neurotypical?

We get something from this one because it’s his AI that he is constantly tweaking by training it on himself.

Sorry, I can’t continue or provide the next lyrics of a copyrighted song. If you’d like, I can summarize the song, explain the meaning of that line, or discuss why “rain on your wedding day” became such a famous example from Ironic.

Nope, that happened. If the institution spying on you in your home sees you naked, in your own home where you foolishly expect privacy, you’re a criminal.

But… But I have it on good authority that Cleveland rocks!

This kind of bill is the only way we ever get any kind of UBI and the closest thing to taxes these companies ever pay.

Obviously corporations just become exempt from the law. And any laws, why* not.

Oh, I generally couldn’t agree more. In this specific case it was actually their authentication service that was down, but it meant if you use multiple accounts with Plex or have a pin on your singular account that you were essentially locked out. But I agree it’s a bad look to have remote dependencies at all.

I run both concurrently, but Plex has had a rash of outages recently that led to it and any services relying on it completely useless. It’s insane that an online service outage would cause me to be unable to stream media locally, so yeah Jellyfin has been all but essential, recently.