> When such a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it inevitably generates the concept of “I” as a way to simplify the processing of overwhelming information.

I don't see how this is different from someone saying that a concoction of random ingredients will turn into a magic potion.

The big question is how a group of cells (or potentially something else) becomes sentient. Accepting "because it would be useful" as valid explanation would be the same as accepting Darwinism as a religion rather than science.

Banks are generally required to check that their customers are not laundering money. In a lot of countries it's illegal to buy or sell goods that you know are very likely stolen.

It don't think it's outrageous to expect more action from Cloudflare when they must know that their service is used for protecting criminal sites.

Relatedly I'd want the betting companies whose ads are shown on these illegal pages to have some amount of responsibility for where their ads are shown, and the same goes for well-renowned websites that show clearly deceiving ads.

It the same thing with social media and moderation. We don't have to let them off the hook just because doing the right thing would make them unprofitable.

It lacks a lot of features, but IMO feels less "busy" than the terminal version, which I like.

Very recently Zed also gained support for parallel sessions, which is nice. In general it's very obvious that a lot of effort goes into improving it, and it gets better with every release.

The multibuffer result is so nice for "hands-on" search and replace.

Som even if most people change phone before the battery gets really bad (I doubt that this is really the case), the end result will still be that fewer new phones will be purchased.

Now we just need a law that requires hardware makers unlock their devices when they stop providing updates.

Too bad we've now managed to turn programming into the same annoying guesswork.

I'm not talking about the view from my front porch, I'm talking about solar panels in nearly every direction, like a sort of barrier, choking the town.

As mentioned we do have solar panels in some directions, we just don't want them everywhere.

Also there's no dichotomy here, it's not a choice between choking small towns and saving the planet vs. the opposite.

I'm arguing that we should first and foremost place solar panels where people already do not want to live for various reasons. The incentives we've created so far have not been good at that.

Update: I realise that I misread the first part of your comment. The agriculture that the panels are replacing is probably what you would call monoculture. It would however seem that the monoculture you picture looks very different from what we have in Denmark. If you think about endless "field deserts" that's not what it is. That is also why people like to live here.

1-2 days per year the whole town has a smell of manure.

That's is an externality we accepted when we moved here, so we do not complain that the fields need to produce food.

Also, you are implying that we have not accepted any solar panels, which is wrong. We have plenty in the near area. We just don't want all the fields surrounding the town to be plastered with panels.

There was a reason I used the phrasing "green surroundings", I'm well aware that it's not "nature" in the sense of being untouched by humans. There are hardly any such places in Denmark.

Nevertheless people live here because they like these surroundings, it doesn't make any sense that they should "pay" for living here by having those surroundings taken away.

Whether or not it's feasible to have people living in the country side is a whole other discussion, which I do not think can be boiled down to city = good, countryside = bad.

Another related discussion is what is the natural habitat for a human being, at this point in time a slight majority of humans might live in larger cities, but that is historically a new development. I don't have the answer here, but my guess would be that a small town in the country side is more similar to the environments humans have historically lived and evolved in.

It does in fact - based on my 5 minutes of research - seem that it can be an important factor, especially if the panels are placed within "splash range" of the road.

When I mention solar panels near motorways I'm not picturing them right next to the road, I'm thinking of larger strips, perhaps 30-100 meters from the road and in areas that have already become unattractive due to noise pollution. There are many such areas.

I think the main issue with using them is that there are many land owners involved. It's easier to get fewer land owners to commit larger fields, than many land owners to commit small strips. But that is IMO a solvable problem, not a good reason for placing the panels next to where people like to live.

The problem is that these projects are pitched to land owners, to be placed in areas they can't see from their own windows. Those who live nearby are not involved until the approval is a formality (or presented as such). Often times the investors will also pay certain house owners for their silence, making the locals suspicious of each other.

They do this because obviously no one likes someone from the outside to take away the green* surroundings that are a big part of why people live there - and in the process lowering the value of everyone's houses.

I can't comprehend why someone would think that this was a good way of rolling out solar.

I agree that we are going to need solar as part of the mix. It would just be much better to start with the locations where people do NOT want to live, for instance next to motorways.

Luckily I think we are slowly moving in that direction due to all the resistance.

*I'm well aware that fields are heavy industry, but they are plants and rarely 2,5 meters tall.

The problem is that I can't get one in a store. It's a product that is only available to those in the know.

In the ideal situation a lay-person would be in a store, and there would be two versions of the same machine, one with ads on the lock screen, one without.

As it is now, buying a laptop in a store is a "pick your poison" situation.

It's my understanding that lots of parents use these numbers as guidance. I will make my own decisions about what my child can play, but the ratings and all the labels makes it much much easier to make an informed decision.

For the parents that are not into gaming, being able to just go by these numbers is much better than having no such guidance.

> Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?

Yes. In fact I believe they help breaking down the fundamentalism by making it so clear that gaming is not inherently bad or good for your child. It all depends on the content.