[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

We would be, if not for Devo

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

According to this wikipedia page - Median wealth per adult globally is estimated at $8,654 for a total population figure of 5.5 million, quite a bit less than the global population estimated at 8.1 billion. I'm guessing because this is "per adult" rather than per person. The children of the world are all on the low end of the wealth spectrum and probably would be a large share of the 3.6 billion.

Also questions can be asked about how they value wealth, do we consider debts, etc...in which case there's a lot of people with zero wealth or less, as well as a lot of people who don't have bank accounts and whose wealth is hard to measure is any ordinary sense. Point being, this particular comparison is kind of meaningless without more context. There's probably ways you can do it to get an even larger number than 3.6 billion.

But a more useful and perhaps more surprising metric is that 8 people have as much wealth as 158 million median people. Which is still ridiculous, like those 8 people are worth a Russia's entire population's worth of people. And not just of poor people, but your average adult person who likely has a job and may even be considered on the well-to-do side within some poorer countries.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago

Now imagine this happens in a remote area with no cell coverage. In Arizona those are a thing too.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I mean do girls actually like that thin moustache? And I feel like if I walked around in one of those velvet jacket things everyone would just be creeped out and/or think I'm wearing it inside out. And I'd be hot, like sweaty kind of hot.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 43 points 6 days ago

"Sustaining the space mission, disaster preparedness, and communications efforts across a 14-year timeline would be challenging due to budget cycles, changes in political leadership, personnel, and ever-changing world events," the report says.

First administration: "We must do something about the asteroid. I've started a plan to divert it, but it'll take several years."

Second administration: "The asteroid is a corrupt globalist conspiracy. We never needed to divert asteroids in the past, why do we supposedly need to spend all your hard-earned tax dollars on this all of a sudden? I will prove my anti-elitist attitudes by cancelling the asteroid program as soon as I take office."

Third administration: "Yes we recognize that the asteroid is a threat, but as we saw last time there's just too much political resistance to solving it. Let's focus on other priorities that we can solve."

89

This seems insane to me. I live in a city where maybe 50-60% of people have cars, and most don't drive them that much. Yet every grocery store I'm aware of with the sole exception of the expensive Whole Foods has a fuel rewards points program. Reasons this should be controversial enough to enable a low-cost alternative:

  1. Many people don't drive and therefore pay a little more for groceries because it includes a perk they don't use
  2. It seems like a very ardent pro-fossil fuel move that you'd think would cause some sort of negative attention from environment activists.
  3. The subsidy typically applies as an amount off per gallon, so you end up really subsidizing big vehicles with big gas tanks. Again, really makes some customers subsidize others and you'd think people (other than me) would be annoyed at this.

But yet, virtually every grocery store does this. Anyone know why? Does the fossil fuel industry somehow encourage this?

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 89 points 1 month ago

Bluesky saw this exodus of people from Twitter show up, and it was a very, very common crowd. … But little by little, they started asking Jay and the team for moderation tools, and to kick people off. And unfortunately they followed through with it. That was the second moment I thought, uh, nope. This is literally repeating all the mistakes we made as a company.”

This is the same problem that all these "free speech platforms" keep running into. Some people will abuse free speech - if nothing else, I think everyone can agree spam is a type of abusive speech. But the difference between abusive speech and ordinary speech isn't a sharp line, and the definitions of "abuse" will vary. So there needs to be some mechanism or rules for deciding what that line is. But all the people that create these platforms instead wanna pretend that line doesn't exist, so they don't create a means of determining it. So then "abuse" becomes whatever the users demand and/or the decisionmakers decide it is. Which is exactly the same as having no free speech to begin with.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 95 points 1 month ago

As productivity increases, artificial scarcity becomes necessary to maintain pre-existing levels of inequality.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 93 points 2 months ago

Autopilot “is not a self-driving technology and does not replace the driver,” Tesla said in response to a 2020 case filed in Florida. “The driver can and must still brake, accelerate and steer just as if the system is not engaged.”

Tesla's terminology is so confusing. If "Autopilot" isn't self-driving technology, does that mean it's different from "Full Self Driving"? And if so, is "Full Self Driving" also not a self-driving technology?

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 85 points 3 months ago

I'm actually glad to see what's been happening to Twitter because as much as it was started with good intentions and used to be a positive force for tech, it was also fundamentally flawed social media model. The basic problem was that only positive reactions were allowed - like, retweet, follow. This is NOT the town square, where you can get any reaction. It's more akin to a dictator's rally, where you're only allowed to clap and booing is not allowed. So it's no surprise that over time, it led to filter bubbles and the spread of mass delusions. Because you could say the craziest or most depraved thing, and all you'd hear is applause.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 87 points 4 months ago

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) study that found SUVs to be 20 percent more polluting and twice as likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to smaller conventional cars.

Twice as likely to kill a pedestrian...if that number holds up this needs to happen in more cities. Driving an excessively deadly vehicle through crowded areas shouldn't be free.

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 107 points 6 months ago

I'm happy with this. I feel like Lemmy is an oasis of nerds in a social media world of toxic people obsessed with all the wrong things.

0
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by rsuri@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I'm annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics. I think a big part of the problem is that modern political figures use social media platforms that are hostile to context and citing sources.

So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged. For example, you could have an article that's a breakdown of the relative costs to society of private vs public transportation, with calculations and sources and tables and whatnot. It wouldn't exactly be an argument, but all the data you'd need to make one. And like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, allowing otherwise massive research tasks to be broken up.

The problem is - who creates a wiki nowadays? It feels like getting such a site and community up and running would be hopeless in a landscape dominated by social media. Will this be a pointless waste of time? Is there a more modern way to do this? All thoughts welcome.

view more: next ›

rsuri

joined 11 months ago