This one-sided view has some good points, but for goodness sake, don't pretend that the alternative has no downsides.

- Nearly 90% of Americans eat red meat [1].

- Environmental activity against meat has led a lot of people (26% of Americans) to believe that there is a push to ban red meat. This issue does not poll well [1].

- Despite the above, Americans are eating less red meat than we used to [2].

- The vast majority of people who choose to reduce their meat intake do so for cost or health reasons, not environmental [3].

Putting all that together... studies like this do not help the environmental cause. Sure, they find something that's vaguely interesting, and can possibly be a bullet point on an environmentalist slide. However, a far better research study would be one focusing on human health impacts of red meat, or demonstrating economic benefits to red meat alternatives.

tl;ld - This study is not useful, and is probably damaging to it's own cause.

[1]: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/nearly-nine-ten-ameri...

[2]: https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/new-survey-reveals-r...

[3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/two-thirds-of-a...

Technically, it does mean that $3.05 from 1914 is worth $100 today, but that's not a useful way of thinking about this. I.e., if your great-grandfather put $3.05 in an envelope in 1914 and you opened it today, it's still $3.05 worth of money (ignoring wheat pennies being a collectors items and whatnot).

* His points about collaboration are excellent. So many research students think that their brains are their best asset. There are many smart people. There are much fewer smart people who can communicate and collaborate well. Be one of those people.

* His points about papers are completely on spot. There are simply too many papers, and many actually aren't that good. The light bulb moment for me was realizing that this author didn't write this paper to help me solve my problem, they wrote it to describe how they solved their problem. Finding the right way to measure whether "their problem ≅ your problem" is key.

* Do a lot of learning on your own. If you don't you're only hurting yourself.

There are at least three moral arguments that can be made:

- Google, as a capitalist company, is ignoring the privacy and FOSS implications, and is guilty of screwing the customer due to greed

- Regular, non-tech folks are constantly being robbed of their privacy, money, and/or identity through malware and social engineering attacks, and Google is guilty of not doing enough to protect them

- Enabling malware delivery and use props up criminals and known bad actors (e.g., north korean), and by not stopping this Google is guilty of supporting these bad actors

I'm not seeing either of those last two points being made strongly. Maybe it's just not the target audience — people here aren't as likely to be scammed, and few of us are regularly thinking about north korea — but I'd expect to see more consideration for the costs of inaction here.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra...

Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.

It is possible to view the fact that capitalist markets can turn a desire for art, individuality, and "something special" into a business as a bad thing. I'm not entirely convinced that's particularly interesting, though... it seems just a localized restatement of a generic "capitalism is bad" take.

Everything you mention will also have to happen, which means that doing this will definitely not be _easy_. That said, it is still a very _straightforward_ solution.

Happy to have someone explain to me why this is a bad take.

Privacy is definitely good but it's not at all an example of the success mentioned in the parent comment. It's deep in the company culture.

While this was true about ten years ago, it's been a while since we've seen this model of software development from Apple succeed in recent years. I'm not at all confident that the Apple that gave us Mac OS 26 is capable of doing this anymore.

This seems to be targeting the market of users with the following intersecting interests: * DIY hardware enthusiast * musician * python developer * maybe also wants graphics...? Seems a small segment to me, but I assume I'm missing something here.

fMRI has always had folks highlighting how shaky the science is. It's not the strongest of experimental techniques.

fMRI has always had folks highlighting how shaky the science is. It's not the strongest of experimental techniques.