I was talking about 8 billion people, the approx. population of Earth.

You’re thinking of a virtually impossible situation, that is, people living in abject poverty in all ways but they take a plane flight once a decade, this isn’t how things work. The people that travel by plane use far more resources than these poor people. It’s almost certainly far less ecologically damaging for an already wealthy person that can afford a plane flight to add an additional flight, than the damage of bringing a poor person into a class that could afford plane travel for the purpose of becoming more cultured. The poor people I’m talking about have serious food insecurity and often live in war torn areas or in the middle of civil wars, they’re not interested in becoming enlightened.

A 9x reduction of our current levels still leads to ecological collapse, it just takes a few decades longer. You gotta think about much more than the plane flights themselves, think about everything it takes to enable plane travel, the resource extraction needed to design, build, and maintain planes and airports, etc. Plane travel doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s an artifact of a fundamentally unsustainable way of life.

If all the poor people started flying, would those who fly multiple times reduce their travel to make up for it? I don’t think so.

Most plane travel is for enlightening people about other cultures, it’s for business, or for visiting distant tourist traps, not worth the damage or exclusivity.

We’re technically well past “half of 8 billion”

Doubling the amount of plane travel we have today would be devastating to our environment.

So encouraging travel as if it’s an inherently good thing we should all aspire too is incredibly destructive, and if you think it’s ok that only some can afford to do this, then it’s an exclusive club for the rich which I don’t think we should be promoting as a good thing.

You should stop skipping math class.

Is your cultural enlightenment worth the destruction of the environment and half the population living in poverty?

There’s 8 billion people on earth, if even half that number traveled the environment would be toast. The only reason we’re alive right now is because 4 billion people are living in abject poverty.

Sustainable travel doesn’t stop invasive species from tagging along, besides the fact, nothing an industrial population of 8 billion people do can truly be called sustainable.

Sure travel is good in some ways, but is it worth the cost of being an exclusive club that destroys the planet?

Travel is actually bad. Sure it allows some subset of wealthy people to “become more cultured” and use it as a status symbol but that’s because it’s inherently exclusive. There’s 8 billion people on earth, we can’t all get on planes and experience different cultures. Is it good to promote something as important to a life experience that’s only available to wealthier people?

If a person needs a plane ride to experience other cultures to no be an asshole, I suspect that they’ll be an asshole either way.

Allowing species to move into new areas and damage ecosystems is one of many problems with travel (not just planes either).

I did some traveling, I loved it, but was it worth the damage and pollution? I don’t think so.

I call for something else lol.

Zypper is the Gen X of package managers.

Wow, I like that “spent since page load”.

I want a ticker like that “Lemmy pages since bong load”.

I remember seeing that airplane on the VHS all the time at the video store

The job of CEO seems the far easier to replace with AI. A fairly basic algorithm with weighted goals and parameters (chosen by the board) + LLM + character avatar would probably perform better than most CEOs. Leave out the LLM if you want it to spout nonsense like this Amazon Cloud CEO.

Check out Pulsar

https://pulsar-edit.dev/

It’s basically the continuation of Atom. It’s got rough edges though regarding plugins but it’s good enough to allow me to avoid VSCode.

Dave!?

Save a slap for the leap seconds creator.

Or, we could collectively realize time is but an illusion and transcend this silly problem.

Larry Finger, your work has made a significant positive impact on my life and I’m sure many others. Thank you.

Now can you work on a driver to allow communication between the living and the dead?

If Ruby is interesting, check out Crystal, it’s like Ruby but static typed and compiled.

Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.

To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.

True but people need to know to look to the documentation, it’s not something we’re born with. People learn to ride a bike, to drive a car, use their TV, etc without reading much documentation. We should educate people on how to figure things out rather than shame them for not knowing as much as you.

Don’t assume everyone can learn as easily as you can or has a background that would facilitate their grasping of the topic. Here you are casually saying “just read the man page” and referencing gcc, it would take my mom a week of education to get to the point where she’d be able to understand what gcc even is and why it has a man page.

And if you don’t want to help them, ignore the noobs, don’t push them away.

I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.

If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.