It's not very hard for ants to collectively commit suicide.

Solving world hunger does not need expansion. Stopping climate change does not need expansion. Preventing the upcoming antibiotics crisis does not need expansion. To the contrary, expansion makes all those things worse or has even started them in the first place.

If tomorrow all ants disappear then most land-oriented ecosystems would just collapse.

We humans are having so egoistically anthropocentrical world views that it's not even funny anymore.

I know which of these two I consider gaslighting.

Funny how you are confirming the sentiment in the article. I'd suggest you read it.

You may find a difference of a few orders of magnitude.

Because these things are hard. Lacking the ultimate solution, a small step is better than nothing.

Or do you only walk because cars and trains are too slow to get you to the next solar system so why bother ...?

About 10 years ago I switched from Gnome 2 to 3. Because my distro did. It was a huge drop in features. Over the years I had tuned my desktop experience on Gnome 2 with different panel apps, layouts, some custom hacks. It worked great. Gnome 3 ended all this. It was really simple, so that it was almost dysfunctional. It was new so I thought the community would soon catch up. But it never did. The experience is still much worse that in the Gnome 2 days. Even a few extensions that try to mimic the Gnome 2 experience can't really compensate, and many of them break with every other update. It's such a shame.

Unless this very phrase does the tripping off. Having to rephrase it would be pretty ridiculous though (and illustrates your point).

But that said, I've often times wondered if this requirement of having to "rewrite in your own words" may do a lot of harm too. It obfuscates that things that people are talking about are actually exactly the same, or make it fuzzy what the exact differences are.

In a particular academic CS area I've witnessed people reproduce again and again the essentially identical description of setting and assumptions, but in being afraid of plagiarism accusations, they over and over re-formulate things which made it nonobvious that things are the same as from other authors or even from their own earlier work.

It's all about the topic discussed. Most of the time you just need to get the question out there. It's not confidential but you don't want to waste time with an extra round trip. So just write it down. No matter chat or email.

And sometimes something sensitive comes up. Then you take precautions, like booking a meeting, or having an understanding within management that your mail inbox/chat contents/.. are considered confidential (which they should) or similar.

And yes, I'm totally preducied agains people with those kinds of github contents. That's my whole point.

My suggestion is to go for quality. Only put up on you github stuff you are genuinely interested in or proud of or do. Not some mandatory exercise which is obviously only there to check a box.

> You get negative points for being a dick.

Giving you the benefit of doubt, I'm assuming this was a "generic you".

This has lost its effect and partially turned it upside down. In school people seem to be instructed "have a github with personal project" to improve hiring chances so now everybody an their mother has an account with a bunch of meaningless crap projects that they have 0 intetest in but put it there to try to boost interview chances.

Don't. Whenever I screen a job candidate and go to their github, if I find that this is just there so you can tick off "projects on github" from your employability checklist, you get huge minus points from me. Then better not have it at all.