So what is their claim then? They think that if you optimize your consumption based on "environmentally friendly" supply chains and aesthetics, even if those optimizations are actually unhealthy (ie. replacing cocoa with sunflower seeds) and/or useless, we'll solve climate change?
This is all about aesthetics for addicted consumers. What would actually be much better, all around, is if our culture started promoting buying high quality cocoa powder and making our own cookies instead of buying highly processed garbage that pretends to be good for the environment.
Things can help solve a problem without being sufficient to solve it on their own. Do you refuse to use LED lights because they won't bring your power bill down to zero?
"Police are harrassing the lower and middle class with frightening and coercive measures on behalf of the political elite. Here's why that's a good thing..."
I think we've entered an era where this isn't worth the mental toll anymore. Especially as LLMs ramp up in adoption, the internet is becoming one giant demoralising psyop. I'm more interested in filtering and minimizing the impact rather than trying to engage with it.
Not yet, but I'm curious if that would be a good improvement. Would it really benefit you to gray out one subreddit, and not the rest? Maybe it'd be better to add exceptions instead?
The reality is that the market has inefficiencies like human emotion and bot/algorithmic trading which absolutely can be exploited by AI. You just need to train an AI to recognize the inefficiencies, which is exactly what neural networks excel at.
I suppose so, if you look at the exacerbation of economic inequality, starvation (+15 million worldwide), and deaths of despair caused by the lockdowns and associated interventions. Seemingly no one minds that.
