I had a nightmare where windows 11 was automatically installed on my Linux computer since it shared network with a windows one.

At university, I had a lecturer who took this one step further. Instead of a power point, he used a word document that he read word by word.

This is so annoying that it’s almost funny.

It’s really common here in Sweden. “Bastuflotte” we call them and there are a couple in every lake around where I live.

Damnit, I was hoping for Turkey to reject us!

I think that the key word here is moderately sized. If I would guess, the optimum could be somewhere around 5’000 to 75’000 inhabitants. With those numbers you would probably not need any public transport within the city since you could bike or walk everywhere. At the same time you will be able to support some local shops for the most essential goods.

The municipality where I live made a study on green house gas emissions by where people lived. Curiously, the people living in the city center where those with the largest environmental footprint and those living more than 20 km away from the city caused the least emissions. They claimed that the difference was mainly due to lifestyle. People in the city tended to travel more by plane, ate food that had been prepared in restaurants rather than making it themselves, shopped more clothes and so on.

When there was a bus strike in the same city, air quality improved markedly. I suspect that those who take the bus in this particular city are those who would’ve otherwise biked (university students in Europe).

Living in a city comes with certain limitations to what you can do in your weekends. You can easily go out to consume and thus cause emissions. When living in the countryside, you can walk to the closest lake and fish your dinner without any emissions. Pretending that cities is the most environmentally friendly place to live is to ignore what people do except working, sleeping and traveling between the two.

I called an associate professor by a common nickname derived from his actual name, thing is that it draws the thought to some drug addict from the 70’s. When I got my phd, he took to calling me by my title as a revenge.

I mean, with centralization going the way that it’s going we will end up there. If the cost of living in densely populated places is so high, I think it hints at an inefficiency with the arrangement. Maybe people should live in fields and bogs a bit more?

I had to use a Windows 11 computer a couple of days ago. I can identify with this meme.

I’m not totally convinced that huge super-cities is the best way for society to move forward. Maybe we need more small towns and people living in the countryside.

This is incredibly sad.

The main difference between the two in your analogy, that has great bearing on this particular problem, is that the machine learning model is a product that is to be monetized.

Exactly. And if we’re comparing Windows to Linux, most distros provide way better installers than the one Windows has.

It could have to do with the make and model of the razor. Some have a more aggressive angle than others. There’s also the blades. Have you tried feather blades?

But how do you define the value of a $100 bill? Is it worth one hotdog, 100 hotdogs or as many hotdogs as someone is willing to trade for it?

See, this is the problem. They’re called brainwashed when they’re protesting a system that failed them. Both parties are bad in that they are runned by wealthy elites that do not share the everyday worries of ordinary folk.

The problem is the wide gaps in society with billionaires that try to go to mars while spouting conspiracy theories at the same time as a single mom can’t feed her children while working two jobs.

I will maintain that the Republican Party is way worse than the Democratic Party but both are bad. What the US would need is an overhaul of the political system, with a removal of the electoral college and the first-past-the-post system. There is also a need for new parties that take the side of ordinary people.

These are definitely not good policies. What I’m arguing for is that the fact that the poorest states are voting Republican, not because the voters benefit from Republican policy, but because they’re unhappy with how things are going in general in their part of the country.

The problem is that both parties are alienating the poor and rural populations. Just the fact that Hillary Clinton did run for president is a warning bell. One shouldn’t expect to see two presidential candidates from the same family. This is also true for the Bush family. This just shows that it’s a small and privileged elite that runs the US. Of course people are upset and of course they will vote for the opponent of a political dynasty.

No one seems to listen to rural and poor voters and therefore they vote for the most extreme and outrageous candidate that they can find. I’m arguing that they do not vote based on suggested policy. If Americans were rational, that’s have a social democratic party like most countries in Europe have.

They are the same in that they are alienating this particular part of the population from the rest of society. I agree that one is clearly better than the other, but my guess is that some people vote for Trump just to “own them libs” in California. They see liberalism and socialism as a threat to their lifestyle, something that’s not necessarily true, and they’re protesting that. We do need politicians that are more understanding to their problems and not those that are solely focused on the urban voters.

I think that leftist policy is the way to go for this, but we still need to satisfy that idea of self reliance. Of course the Democratic Party is way more sane but in my view, they are still very conservative.

Disclaimer: I don’t live in the US and, when looking at US politicians, my opinions are most aligned with those of Bernie Sanders.

I don’t think that the problem here is the republicans or democrats, but both. These poor places have long been neglected and no politician care about states that are not swing states and have very few electors. The whole political system seems to abandon poor people, old people and people living in rural areas.

The reason why they vote for Trump is that they want to give a big middle finger to those that they see trying to dismantle their way of life: city people and rich people. Farmers work very hard to feed their country and there’s a pride in being self reliant.

Take for example modern cars, you’re not supposed to fix them yourself. That’s the producers fault. But when politicians make fuel costs go up and try to incentivize EV purchases, people can feel like their agency is taken away. The problem isn’t the fuel pricing or the drive train, but the fact that you can no longer service your own car.

This is a problem with society in general, not with republicans. The alt-right movement feeds on these fractures in society. It’s a symptom, not the underlying sickness. To combat this we need better social security, free healthcare, and more wealth redistribution.