The image is blurred beyond readability, but via tineye.com I found what seems to be the original: https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4f68/2515569/99b99587... It splits out what environmental factors cause cancer. Unsurprisingly, your chance is already 25% lower if you don't smoke, but the rest of the pie chart is also interesting

Email receivers (be it Gmail or your local council) don't differentiate if you're self hosting or a business. So long as small businesses can manage (who have like one part-time sysadmin that also manages a ton of other IT stuff; email doesn't take much of their time), so can you. If you set up the usual suspects like SPF and DMARC, the domain is not a known spammer, and the IP not in a blocked address range, it's mostly hands-off (source: I self host my email)

If you need it to really be super reliable, yeah, you need to send through one of the big companies who have not just a dedicated sending IP address but entire ranges dedicated to email sending, as well as staff that will respond to delivery issues 24/7. Microsoft rejecting email from Google and vice versa isn't unheard of, so there aren't guarantees anywhere, but that would be your best bet. For my personal use, that extra nine of reliability isn't needed

The population crisis is that the current population isn't sustainable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day (and most of those haven't a rich lifestyle yet; most people on HN are in the top 10% worldwide income). We need either to become more sustainable per capita, have fewer capita, or get more earths. Any solution is fine. Otherwise, we'll run out, and the remaining 90% of people get a lot of undeserved worldsuck

Note that we are already doing what you want: world population is projected to increase by 25% (!) in the next 75 years. At the same time, we're lifting people out of poverty (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-ex...) which causes them to be able to buy more stuff, live richer lives, and be less sustainable (e.g. visible on a CO2 chart for the same countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...). Which is fair right? Why shouldn't they get to live like us. But we can't go on like this; something has to give.

More people isn't helpful for at least another century. Let's evaluate the baby-making situation in 2100 and work on the real problems we face today

As a secondary problem, people (traditionally women, but with a two-income household it could be either party) often already can't leave a relationship because they can't support themselves and their child(ren) without the other half and so they're stuck in relationships that might either not work for them or that are downright abusive. With a big tax on leaving your partner... oof, why in the world would you want more lock-in?! Is this a manosphere control thing that I'm not aware of?

- The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks comes to mind. I had no idea how rampant purposeful discrimination was so recently for example, but the point of the book is the HeLa cells - and biology is also not my forté so loads of new information there as well. It was very interesting in expected and unexpected areas for me

- Daniel Suarez' Kill Decision has only gotten more relevant since its release in 2012. Not sure I'd call this meaty though, but his thrillers are always good (near-ish future tech) and the author iirc also said this particular one is meant as food for thought and not only entertainment

I haven't commented on this topic before (here or elsewhere) but I don't understand your surprise at people being critical. Everyone has a vested interest in keeping the planet usable. We could try lots of things in space, like agriculture or power production. It takes a lot of fuel to push a usable kilogram of stuff into a low orbit (laser propulsion and spin launches aren't quite there yet), so moving operations into orbit has various major downsides. So long as nobody states an upside, yeah, my mind is quite blown about wasting investor money on this. Even when not considering the opportunity cost of that used money (alternative positive uses), it seems like burning the equivalent amount of cash in a bonfire or otherwise disappearing the money would be a lesser evil

In desktops maybe, which will be somewhat popular still among people who play a lot of games but not a majority (IDC has laptop sales at a 3 to 1 ratio to desktops in 2022, but that's not specific to people who play games, much less (2d) Factorio players specifically). The system I bought before my current one was in 2018 and mid-tier then was 2GB. There was no craze for (V)RAM at the time, more a question of which setting you want to play games at (and with which render distance) than whether a given laptop works for games at all

As of last month, Steam reports that >15% of their customers still have 4GB VRAM or less: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

I'm not familiar with Subnautica beyond the name, is that known for being particularly efficient?

edit: meant to say 4GB rather than 2GB in the Steam stats reference, fixed