BananaTrifleViolin

In all honesty at this stage it’s not that exciting. They’re hyping up people going further from the earth than ever before, which is technically true, but astronauts have orbited the moon before just not quite as far in absolute distance.

So this is mostly doing something done before in the 70s. Rocket launches, grainy images of the moon from close up, photos of earth from near the moon and astronauts floating in zero G isn’t new.

I don’t blame you for not getting excited to watch long videos where not a lot happens very slowly, or reading press coverage which is brutally honest largely fluff.

The ultimate goal is exciting, but that doesn’t mean every step on the way is exciting. I suspect the first moon landing will be of more interest, then the next one will not be, even though the landings are a stepping stone to Mars.

True but at the same time bees help spread pollinating plants - it’s a two way relationship. They may be commercialised for crops, but they will go to any plants in range and contribute to their spread.

So a method of increasing bee populations may also be helpful in spreading wildflowers and speeding up rewilding efforts.

In addition dramatically increasing bee populations may help resolve issues with pollination such as in some regions of China where damage is so bad that hand pollination is needed for crops. Restoring bee pollinators in those areas may increase crop yields, which in turn reduces the general pressure globally on expanding the use of fertile land for farming.

So while crop/pollen diversity is certainly very important, this kind of research still has potentially big benefits for the environment both in the fight to rewild and slow the spread of land use being moved to farming.

I love The Net, it’s a decent thriller even if janky by todays standards. I saw it as a kid some years after release, and the tech side of it was absurd even then. But the core plot is basically Hitchcock like, and Sandra Bullock is good in it. If you can let the silly tech side of things go (it was made when the Internet was a new concept even to users, so it does get things wrong), it’s actually a decent enough plot.

This is a potentially interesting study but there is a key gap which is around the actual health risk.

The figures around safety mg/kg are to do with the rate the toxic materials leach out of an item, not the absolute concentration within the materials or artificial lab based maximum leach rates. The quoted 10 mg/kg is also not an actual limit:

10 mg/kg limit originally proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

The limit orignally proposed is not the same as the actual limit. As far as I can see it is 0.05mg/kg leach into food, 0.04mg/l for toys, and as far as I can see there are no other limits in place. They are essentially being restricted in food contacting materials and toys, and requiring clear labelleling in other uses: https://www.echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/bisphenols

What really matters is under what circumstances the “maximum concentrations of 351 mg/kg” were reached. If that is an artificial lab test with no relatability to real world situations then it’s meaningless. If that rate of leach occurs at body temperature with a bit of moisture then it’s very worrying. But even then the absolute amount of the bisphenols in the products also matters - for example it might be there amount mixed into the plastics in a ear bud is too small to actually be toxic to a human.

Without that information this feels like sensationalist reporting of the findings - the article is implying there is a health risk when there may be none, and they are also implying there is wrong doing or failure of the EU enforcement of its regulations when there may be none.

It is worth reading the disclaimer at the end; while their aims may be laudable they are not conducting independent research and it’s not clear their work is even peer reviewed. Instead this is a single issue lobbying group, part funded by EU funds, producing research with a political aim.

About ToxFree LIFE for All: The ToxFree LIFE for All project (LIFE22-GIE-HU-101114078) is an EU-funded initiative aimed at protecting citizens from hazardous chemical exposure through awareness, testing, and policy advocacy. Partners include VKI (Austria), Arnika (Czechia), dTest (Czechia), TVE (Hungary), and ZPS (Slovenia).
Funded by the EU Life Programme (LIFE22-GIE-HU-ToxFree LIFE for All, 101114078) and the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or other donors. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

All OSes are a collection of lots of different software that work together to run your system.

For Linux distros, that includes kernel packages (the core of the OS), but also a huge range of software to make the desktop work, apps you run (office software etc) and more. They are all separate projects, constantly working on and releasing updates at their own paces. There are new software releases all the time for all sorts of things.

If you install a Linux point release Distro, like Ubuntu 22.04, you get the OS and a snapshot of lots of different software they have chosen to package. Then after install you will receive constant minor patches and security updates, but the main software doesn’t get major updates. For example, if Ubuntu uses say version 1.0 of your desktop (e.g. Gnome), and the Gnome project then releases 2.0, you won’t receive that. You’ll just receive patches and security fixes for KDE 1.0, but not big updates for new features or changes. This allows Ubuntu to keep 22.04 stable and working predictably for people, and means they don’t have to retest the whole OS to make sure it works and stays secure. All they have to do is test the security patches, make sure those work well with the existing OS and then release that to users.

But overtime Ubuntu 22.04 inevitably falls further behind all the major releases of the software they use, and people are missing out on more and more new features, more major bug fixes and more. The desktop environment for example might have released version 2.0 with new features, and the Office software may have released 2.0 with new features, and 100s of other components the same even in just 6 months. So the distro maintainers then build a whole new version of the OS with all the big changes they want to include, and release that as 22.10 in October 2022 - this is their next 6 monthly point release. People can chose to stay on 22.04 and just get security patches (so the OS is stable and safe) or decide to move their PC to 22.10 and get the newer software.

This is a constant process. Ubuntu is on a 6 monthly release cycle, and people can chose when they want to switch; they can do it every 6 months or less frequently if they want. Ubuntu and other distros also have LTS releases - Long Term Service releases - if you use that version, it is maintained for a few years as is, except for patches and security updates. Not everyone wants the latest version of software, they may just want something that they know works and they get on with using it.

Another model is rolling releases where the Linux distro constantly rolls out new updates for all the components. This can even be weekly, or near enough daily; for example OpenSuSE Tumbleweed is a rolling release. People might not update every day but the maintainers are constantly rolling out the latest versions of software (after some testing to make sure it works) so that end users can keep bang up to date on near enough everything. This is riskier than a point-release, and sometimes bugs get through that have to be undone, but it allows those who want cutting edge systems to have them. OpenSuSE also have a point release version Leap which updates once a year, and is also developing Slowroll which works on a monthly release cycle.

Windows actually does something very similar to the “Point Release” system for new features and major changes, although the updates are all closed source and under Microsofts control. Windows 11 has had major annual updates 21H2, 22H2, 23H2, 24H2, and now 25H2. One big difference though is that Windows updates are only Windows and Microsoft provided software; all the rest of the OS including drivers the user has to update (or sometimes Windows Update manages). On Linux, much more of the system is usually updated by the Distro, and the user generally updates a much smaller proportion themselves (e.g. maybe their Nvidia drivers, and their flatpaks).

The big point releases are not about increased security, they are instead more about getting feature releases out to users from lots of different projects. The security side is managed by constant patches and smaller bugfixes rolled out within each major version.

If you’re on a 6 monthly distro, you probably won’t notice big changes, you’ll more likely see lots of smaller changes. The really big changes (like KDE moving from 5.0 to 6.0) are less frequent - maybe every couple of years - while the smaller but still substantial changes are frequent - like 6.2 to 6.3. You will notice when you move from 5.0 to 6.0 but when you move from 6.2 to 6.3 you’ll have lots of smaller nice changes but not a major change to your desktop. So while it seems like little is changing, lots of small things are changing all the time.

Faster than what? Assuming you’re currently on a version of Windows, then moving to a lightweight Linux distro running a low footprint desktop environment would likely free up system resources for your web browsing. Windows is bloated and not maintained for older or lower powered hardware. The S145 seems to be a dual core Celeron based system so you’ll get reasonable performance benefits switching to a less resource hungry and less bloated OS.

I’d try something like MX Linux XFCE for a familiar windows like interface but with a smaller footprint freeing up resources for web browsing. You could also try MX Linux Fluxbox for an even lighter-weight desktop environment.

In terms of browser, I’d recommend sticking with Firefox (or derivatives like Libre Wolf) or Chromium if you want to stay closer to Chrome. I’d ditch chrome for privacy reasons rather than speed; most browsers are bloated these days and changing the OS will probably make the bigger impact when running lower powered hardware.

At this rate we’ll need a Wine/Proton that runs on Windows to allow you to run Windows software.

So who benefits from $30bn in spending on Laptops and Tablets? Oh Apple and Microsoft. Not students. Surprise surprise.

As with many of these articles there is a big caveat - Gen Z in the USA. It does not follow that this research applies across the world. It’d be interesting to see how other rich countries outcomes are different with their differing approaches to this. For example here in the UK I don’t believe there has been a wholesale move to laptops/tablets for every student in schools. Technology is certainly used but it’s not solely about students using laptops and tablets. Its things like smart wide boards, and the use of digital content to engage attention and so forth. Spending billions on laptops for all would be a scandal when school buildings need renewing for example.

I would hazard to suggest that the US education system is being corrupted in a similar way to other parts of the US state, with big expensive projects decided at state level by the Republicans and Democrats thanks to lobbying, benefiting big companies but not citizens. This is instead of money going to areas of proven benefit such as more teachers, school infrastructure renewal, or funding of homework clubs, after school activities, breakfast clubs or free school meals. Things proven to make a difference across the world but things that don’t benefit big US corporations.

And lets be honest, if you wanted to give every student a laptop you wouldn’t be going to Apple or Microsoft. You’d save money and go for generic hardware and a license free operating system like Linux. But that would be an anathema to both the Democrats and the Republicans, who have signed off huge spending on overpriced tech.

In fairness to Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird are platform agnostic. It’s not really for them to tell users what OS to use. It’d cause them more aggro than its worth from all the people who have differing opinions on what the best OS is or the best distro to use. It’s already a tightrope act keeping their users happy when they announce things like AI in the browser. I think they’re right to focus on their own areas of interest.

Most home users use a PC for internet browsing, watching videos, gaming and maybe a bit of basic word processing - all of which Linux does well and for free.

So yes absolutely, vast majority of people should stop wasting money paying for software licenses and go free.

Nah that’s it. Their logic is seemingly if you don’t give the money to Google it’s not contributing to economic growth.

The article is very biased - it basically suggests young people are unwilling to read, that AI is a good thing and that the wikipedia contributors are being unreasonable. It goes on to talk about how AI has “extracted value” from Wikipedia in an unquestioning way - no mention of compensation to the project, just talking about what a triumph Wikipedia is a source for AI to train on.

The “Simple Summaries” situation is less to do with the summaries and more to do with the risk of AI slop being introduced into Wikipedia unquestioned. The summaries were unchecked and unverified, which add a real chance that wikipedia started serving up inaccurate summaries and undermined it’s own reputation.

In addition that idea that younger generations don’t have the concentration span to “read a wall of text” is pernicious and patronising nonsense part of a general media bias against Gen Z and Gen Alpha. There seems to be this barely questioned narrative that they have short attention spans and are unwilling or even unable to read, just because they grew up in the era of social media like Instagram and latterly Tik Tok.

I’ll give a better hypothesis for why younger generations spend less time on wikipedia: the big tech giants like Google have stolen all the information people have put on there and serve it up in their own summaries on the search engine (preventing click throughs) or through their own AI slop engines. They don’t want people clicking through to Wikipedia, they want them clicking through to an ad. The problem is not Wikipedia, and the problem is not Gen Z or Gen Alpha; the problem - as is frequently the case - is the tech mega-corporations who steal everything (including wikipedia) and sell it back to us with ads or via AI slop.

Both sides announced this to boost their share prices as they’re both growth stocks. Growth stocks are a trap - no company can keep on growing forever.

This announcement is a sign the AI boom is probably soon to end. Nvidia quietly announcing the $100bn deal isn’t going to happen, is Nvidia trying to reduce it’s exposure to the bubble popping. Unfortunately for Nvidia, it’s already way way too deep into the mess, and the vast majority of it’s value is speculative. The question is have they damaged their core business by chasing the AI bubble, and what liabilities will they be left with if their customers go bankrupt and don’t pay them for their product.

No because time is just time. Time in the moment is a perception of enjoyment and pleasure. That is a choice to be present and take enjoyment in what you’re doing. You don’t need to trade time for time you already have, you just need to use the time you have in the way that makes you enjoy it.

Wow it really is heading towards crisis point when you have people saying “keep feeding the beast or it’ll eat us”.

The Microsoft strategy often seems to be “It worked well, but we completely redid it because we need to justify out existence. Now it barely works with new bugs”