Computers don't have souls, the bible clearly states that only humans and cows can think.
/s
daniskarma
joined 6 months ago
It depends on the content, not the media.
I'm not in china and I get chess, math and physics videos.
What tf you want them to do?
I don't see how reading magazines, what people used to do, is any better.
Saddest typo ever.
I just won't tell this to my psychologist, just in case.
Many sites don't work like that and don't even load the content from the server before the paywall check.
But I have a trick that work 100% of the time. Just don't read those sites.
I get that journalism and entertainment magazines have workers and need to be paid BUT:
They were getting paid when I could pay a cheap physical newspaper if I want to read it and usually had those for free anyway. As you'll get newspapers on most public places and one single newspaper would serve a whole family. In my house we didn't really paid more than 4€ a month and got physical things that you could just keep. Now with digital distribution you own nothing and it is far more expensive. So... No. Also they get a ton of public money through institutional advertisement, so I'm already basically paying for them without getting access to their content.
So unless they are willing to change their model I'll just refuse to read them. I'm happier without their clickbaits anyway.
Cryptography is moving away from primes. Given the theoretical danger of quantum computer over them.
Latices is what will theoretically be used in the future for cryptography.
My country already have mass transit and walkable areas really.
But people who chose to live far away from cities because cities give them anxiety also have rights and deserve nice things.
It could be measured I suppose.
Giving completely free will without economic pressure most people would chose one environment or the other.
I suppose there's enough statistical data on the world to make such analysis. Not that I'm going to do it. But I think it could be measurable what people chose when money is not a factor, as in I need to live X because I don't have money to live in Y.
Anyway it's almost a fact that there would be people that would love to live in one place and some people on the other. So best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.
I'm unhappy of sharing this world with people with such low empathy, yes.
As stated in other comment of mine. Public transport/walkikg is good for high density cities.
Not everyone would be happy living in such environment. I fact I think most people won't. Low density environment have a need for cars. And I think if cars are needed, they'd better be electric and self driving.
Most problems would simply not be a problem if we drastically reduce the human population. Which would not only avoid the issues caused by climate change but also would prevent further increases in pollution and CO2 emissions.
I don't know why the best solution is often the less talked about. Just stop having so many children. We don't have 70% infant mortality rate like we used to, there's no need to have 4 kids to preserve your legacy.