What makes you think that the universities can survive without the current staffing levels? I assure you that with the maze of current funding structures, reporting requirements, travel planning, visa work, unfunded government mandates, etc., they cannot. The only way that they could survive is if the entire structure, and many laws changed. The unfortunate problem with that is then all US universities wouldn't be able to be the best in the world. Top US Universities wouldn't' be able to bring in the best from around the world, research at Universities would dwindle to a fraction of the current amount. Communication and knowledge sharing between peers at other institutions would shrink. The same people who currently complain loudest about the price of university would howl the loudest and diversity and inclusion offices closed at universities. Student amenities would be stripped. Funding for student mental health would drop. The list goes on and on.
You ignore the points made in the article by pointing out how more people are consumers on their electronic devices today. You point out how this change affected mobile devices and browser based consumption. However computer users are not a monolithic group. This misses the forest for the trees. Sure, a higher percentage of computer device users are there only for consumption, and can easily have their needs met by a modern smartphone or chromebook, but that's not who the article is about.
The article is focused on how the limitations and changes made for consumption computing has affected the OS design and negatively impacted the users who actually need a desktop or laptop, either to produce or as hobby machines. If the OS is constantly changing and degrading, it may not matter that much to those who only really need a smartphone or tablet, but it has a huge impact on the rest.
Desktop and laptop sales have been dropping for years as more consumers realize that their needs can be met by a mobile device, tablet, or chromebook. Sure the changes probably don't mean much to that market, but that market is fading. Making unnecessary changes which interfere with the UI impact the hardcore users, who will be the base of desktop/laptop users in the near future.
Your argument is essentially that since the changes have little impact to those who don't care, that it shouldn't matter to the rest of us. That's pretty dismissive of a large group of users, and a rather useless observation.
But that's who I feel like Windows at least with Windows 11 is making the changes for. well no let me correct myself, they're making changes for convertible laptop users that use touch but they're also making changes for people that don't exist... Actually scratch that I have no idea who they're making these changes for... I keep using my taskbar and my start menu the way I like to use it and I keep wanting to expand my start menu because I pin things to my start menu because that's a thing you can do... But now I have buttons I could press so I could see the next metaphorical page of things that I have pinned... But then I pin things to the taskbar because the desktop is an unusable mess where everything just goes when I install things... So the desktop is disabled so my taskbar and my start menu is my desktop... But the changes they are making make making changes to the taskbar and the start menu impossible... And I don't have a touch screen device but I feel like also using any of this on a touch screen, none of the targets are the right size... So again I'm unsure who they're making this for if the desktop and laptop users are the ones who will go extinct. There are no other users. There are clearly zero users that these changes are for.
This might be somewhat accurate for personal computing, but business computing will continue to be done with desktops and laptops for decades. Windows itself is mainly dominant because of its dominance at an enterprise level.
The entire conversation is about laptop and desktop OSes. The complaint is that all OSes for these devices have changed for the worse and continue to do so. These devices will continue to be produced and used, but by fewer people. These people are the ones who hate the UIs in newer OSes.
Most people may move to iOS and Android, but that's a moot point since those aren't the people or the OSes that the article is about.
You don't provide any evidence to refute OP, and you use vitriol in your reply.
EV cars use more rare elements that require more mining is true. So one would assume that the initial CO2 generated in the productions to be higher.
The grid isn't 100% renewable so there is plenty of co2 produced in running an EV.
EV batteries wear out around 100000 miles, requiring a costly(both $$ and CO2 production) replacement. Meanwhile ICE cars today can regularly approach 200000 miles before replacement.
With those three things considered, I highly doubt that CO2 production is impacted all that strongly by switching to an EV.
* Everywhere in the United States, driving the average EV
results in lower emissions than the average new gasoline
vehicle.
* Over 90 percent of people in the United States live in regions where driving the average EV produces lower emissions than the most efficient gasoline vehicle on the market
today (59 miles per gallon).
* Driving the average EV in the United States produces global warming emissions equivalent to those emitted by a gasoline car getting 91 miles per gallon.
* Driving the most efficient EV produces lower emissions than the most efficient gasoline car where 97 percent of the population lives—in other words, virtually everywhere in the
United States.
* Everywhere in the United States, the emissions from driving an EV pickup truck are lower than those for the average
new gasoline or diesel pickup truck.
The problem here I think is that you miss the original point of the top-level parent. They weren't claiming that EVs emit more CO2 from driving, but from _manufacturing_.
Whether or not this claim is true I can't say for sure, because nobody on either side of this discussion in this thread has provided links/proof to back up/refute these claims, so it's just a bunch of people throwing numbers at each other with no context.
The `-` operator has never been removed? If I search for `athens`, I get results for Athens, Greece. If I search for `athens -greece`, I get one map result for a random "Athens Greece", followed by web results for Athens, AL, Athens, GA, and Athens, OH. At most, the issue is that the widgets don't respect the `-` operator as well as the web results do.
I don't think reddit and in particular /r/science should be held aloft as a beacon of reason and good thinking. The pseudo science and junk that is regularly upvoted there proves that they should more frequently question the basic competence of the researchers and reviewers.
