I won't complain about this new world of "algorithmic desire" because my desires provide me with interesting and enjoyable content (none of Mr. Beast).
Perhaps the problem isn't the algorithms of yt and Tik Tok, but rather the people who decide to watch these things instead of moving on?
It's pretty evil to troll people into giving them e-mail and name and then have the audacity to ask for a phone number. Without giving people who don't want that the possibility to delete the previously entered personal data...
Putting NATO soldiers on the ground is equivalent to declaring WW3, few are willing to do that.
Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.
The open question is how long it will take and at what cost, to Ukraine, its allies and Russia. And it seems that there are vested interests in prolonging the conflict as much as possible.
> Therefore, Ukraine's fate is sealed and the outcome is dictated by Russia's desires.
That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events. It is possible to fight against Russia, and it is in the best interest of the Europe and the collective west to do so.
For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.
It was never only about Ukraine - occupation of Ukraine was always the first step. Baltic countries and Poland understand that very well, please listen to them. If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.
Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety. Inflation is a very small price to pay compared to the alternative.
> That is very far from the truth - please check the recent events
You are forgetting or ignoring Russia's bigger guns. If Russia wanted to use NATO methods, it would be over in one day with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
> For multiple decades Russia was using energy as a way to corrupt EU.
"Interesting" narrative.
> If Ukraine falls, Russia will invade Europe in a decade with Ukrainian military on its side.
If Russia wanted to attack NATO and start WW3, it would already have done so. Why would it need to attack Ukraine first?
Please try to think logically.
> Europe need to remove its dependence on the Russian gas completely for its own safety.
The same as above applies. If Russia wanted to conquer Europe as you seem to believe, independence from Russia's gas isn't going to help in any way to prevent that.
Carpet bombing? Burning cities with napalm? Using depleted uranium? Burning children with Phosphorus? Planting mines for civilians? Supporting terrorist organizations that bombs people, or even directly bombing people directly? Starving thousands of hundreds of people and openly admitting doing that...
Do you need more?
Only it's difficult to actually use them without getting getting preventative strike yourself. NATO had tactical nukes as well, they only declared it after ruZZkies threatened to use it.
Russia can threaten with nuclear holocaust at any time for whatever reason.
They could say tomorrow: give up all land that belonged at some point to Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact or we will start nuclear holocaust. They could even demand Alaska. Then what? We give in? No!
If russia could conquer ukraine by wanting it harder, I think they’d have tried that? Russia has stalled and began losing ground because their army isn’t very good, not because of some detail of russia’s desires
They haven't tried that with all means available to them, and the means aren't nukes. As the recent events show, Russia could put Ukraine into a total energy blackout [1][2] if they decided to pursuit this strategy of waging the war. This would be the same strategy that was used by the US military in past conflicts [3], and it implies significantly more civilian casualties in a long run.
AI-generated media in general will likely plunge us into a new dark age. Every report you see on the news, every "secret recording" of a politician doing something dodgy, will be either an AI generated fake or considered as such by many viewers. Nothing will be certain anymore and MSM have already lost their credibility for many viewers.
Their cars per capita is about 2/3 of the US [1]. I bet if you correct for the effect of GDP per capita, they will rank near the bottom among European countries too.
> I bet if you correct for the effect of GDP per capita, they will rank near the bottom among European countries too.
If you start correcting for other variables, you'll have to look at demographics, size and flatness of the country, prices, public transport availability, population distribution between rural and urban areas etc. etc.
Relatively poor Romania has a lower number of cars per capita and if you live in Bucharest like me, you'd believe everyone owns a car (half being Dacias), nobody rides a bicycle.
Also:
> The Vehicles per 1000 people of Denmark is similar to that of United Kingdom, Qatar, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Dominica, Barbados, Bermuda, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic with a respective Vehicles per 1000 people of 516, 514, 495, 494, 491, 470, 439, 422, 417, 382 (per 1,000 people) and a global rank of 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43.
The underlying paper comments the Czech Republic has high car ownership but relatively low use because of good public transport:
> The few exceptions where car modal share remains low and car ownership is relatively high, such as Switzerland, Japan, and the Czech Republic, have well-developed and efficient public transportation systems (e.g., public buses and subways) to satisfy their main mobility demand.
Thus, a ranking of "Vehicles per 1000 people" isn't necessarily indicative of vehicle use, and it's the latter which generates CO2 (for IC engines) and other pollutants, not mere ownership.
The paper calculates the effect of changing the modal share of bike use world-wide to match that of Denmark, and presents the first ever (to the authors' knowledge) substance for that calculation.
Bicycles compete with other modes of transport in varying degrees.
Critically, bicycles have very close to the same random route ability as cars. They’re excluded from most limited-access highways but otherwise can go directly to a place 2 miles away by traveling approximately 2 miles and without significant waiting times for the user. Contrast that with public transit that might need to go 5+ miles and involve a transfer, multiple waits, and walking on both ends to cover that same 2 mile journey.
It was practically possible for me to cycle to my old office. It was comically impractical (though technically possible) to use a combination of multiple buses and multiple subway lines to get there. For that commute (and I think many other journeys), bikes are competing with cars not public transit.
I think "it depends". For someone living in the same city as you, but having both their apartment and place of work connected by a more feasible public transport route, a bike competes with public transport.
For me it augments it: Taking public transport is not pleasant (10 miles at 40m travel time), but I could go to the train station by bike, take the train and then cycle to work (<20m). Only reason I'm not doing that that I have to carry the bike up the stairs (10m height difference) and instead do wfh. By car it's 15 to 20m depending on traffic.
I'm actually surprised that parasitic infection rate with native parasites (where humans aren't an accidental host) was so low at 30% or less. That would mean the existing treatments were rather effective. Just for comparison, https://www.africaontheblog.org/one-billion-1000000000-negle... claims that half the world's population hosts at least one species of worms.
And still you're typing repetitive text. My dad was punching cards and able to read code from punched tape. I grew up writing code on a home computer's display. And now, 35 years later, it's long overdue that some visual NoCode tool should be the default for mostly repetitive programming jobs. If I want to build a Finder Quick Action to resize an image, for example, I certainly won't open a C editor, I'll just use Automator.
Perhaps the problem isn't the algorithms of yt and Tik Tok, but rather the people who decide to watch these things instead of moving on?