Conversions will be into your preferred units set there.

The symptoms is always generally poor performance after the system has been running a while (4h to a week, varies), usually with WindowServer using CPU cycles non-stop and UI that felt choppy across all programs.

This seemed to happen frequently after "opening many files", like doing some recompiling with Xcode for a few hours, or indexing a large volume with Spotlight. Rebooting helps temporarily.

Today I realized that data read/written since boot was about 1TB in a few hours on a brand new OS install, and I traced this back to the com.apple.Safari.History process. Somehow having bookmarks and previously using Safari 15.x caused a huge amount of I/O that wouldn't stop - the solution was to remove all bookmarks and reading list items. Performance was immediately back to normal, no reboot needed.

So just logging in with your iCloud id, you could be "importing" whatever performance problem you're having on a new install.

I recommend you reboot and take a look at your disk I/O stats - maybe this will help someone!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-lab-leak-about-face-1...

That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this.

At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list.

| ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement.

I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread:

"If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground."

Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy?

Quoting the same person:

"I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible."

So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions.

| And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves.

There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.

The CCP taking over now vs. after 2046 was the only predictable outcome here, but the freedom to speak your mind and disagree without threat of physical harm was lost before.

EDIT: The predictable downvoting without replying shows the downvoters don't refute the facts, being that protesters physically attack others who disagree. That's not democracy.

"Less than 200 years ago, humans organized their daily routines by the sun clock ... which was in synchrony with their body clock. Now, most of us ... use electric light at night... these new conditions challenge our health and can cause safety problems, [and] ... become even worse under Daylight Saving Time (DST)".

It seems like most people would agree that living in synchrony to the solar day is better for us, but I would think that DST would help with that when the sun starts to rise around 6AM and many people aren't awake yet.

Why would eliminating DST help?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-man-fights-ba...

Otherwise we're just arguing that "water isn't wet" and what the definition of "is" is.

"Does Bitcoin justify its energy usage? Does it add enough value? So far, the market says it does."

That doesn't "debunk" any argument about energy use, it only tries to justify it.

[0] https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/

You mentioned planet ecosystem and consumption, so let's use energy as an example. The richest people consume much more per capita than everyone else, but still represent a tiny fraction of overall usage. So no matter how you deal with the rich, it won't solve that problem. Meanwhile, everyone acts in their own self-interest, so you have developing nations increasing their per capita energy consumption as their standard of living increases, and overall energy use goes up. The planet doesn't know the difference in who used to energy and whether it was justified/deserving/whatever. The result is the same.

So what's the solution? You could decrease wasteful consumption (commuting, global shipping as labor arbitrage) and you can change how energy is generated (i.e. renewables), which you could lump into political and technological changes. The easiest way to do either is to align people's incentives so they'll naturally drive those changes, since again people act in their own self-interest. Some rich people will lose out in that transition and try to oppose changes, others will benefit and try to further them, but the net effect isn't necessarily negative. And of course energy use is just one example here.

So these problems are kind of orthogonal to how you feel about rich people, meaning that if you let yourself get distracted with that, you'll have little impact.

There seems to be growing resentment of "the rich" recently, but I believe that's misplaced. Things will get worse for "the poor" until the cause is diagnosed correctly.

It's still all just Fire and Motion [0].

[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/