That converts to about 2 to 3 burgers per day in the USA, depending on how unhealthy the average American prefers their burger.

As an app developer, let me just say that it’s no delight to publish something completely free without ads. Users are incredibly entitled and will want more, leaving poor ratings. And you won’t make it in the search results without revenue, ad placement, high ratings and frequent updates.

So, organically, because ultimately what people collectively want is an app that is heavily invested into, the apps become ad-riddled or subscription based because it’s the only way to fund a team that can maintain an app that reaches the top of the lists.

I personally put 50% of the blame on the app stores for promoting in the manner that they do, and 50% of the blame on users for being entitled shits.

Investments should be made into research grants for recovery of our finite resources like phosphorus and pooling a fund for rising welfare costs, NOW. Instead, these subsidies are achieving the exact opposite.

Good luck, humans of 2100!

Signed,
A human that elected to not have children from 2025

Honestly I fully understand that it’s difficult for people to become invested in solving problems that will affect future generations. Most people are focused on issues that immediately affect them or their children, and are more than eager to push anything else onto the next batch of humans to fix.

I’m hopeful that we as a society can break away from this kind of short-term thinking, but realistically think a revolution may be unavoidable.

That’s certainly an interesting perspective.

If we look at our history, there have been numerous scenarios where industry was reduced, like disease or war. A society is fairly resilient against short-term fluctuations in the number of working age adults.

I’d not panic about it, especially as the human population continues to grow, and with every passing day there are still vastly more children being born than adults reaching retirement age.

I was primarily confused about your comment about resources. You clarified that this concern is about the production and distribution of food and other essentials. I’m not concerned about this; again, when we look back, we can see how technological breakthroughs have allowed us to produce and distribute more with fewer hands at an exponential pace that has kept up with our equally exponential population growth.

I’m sooner concerned about the depletion of non-renewable resources, like phosphorus, which is essential for life on earth. Reclaiming it from the sea bottom is not something we’ll be able to perform at scale within a generation and the clock on a food crisis had been ticking for some time already. This is just one of many examples.

I’m afraid that the answer to averting a global food crisis is not to increase our population growth, either. As a species, we will need to come up with a better long-term plan for sustainable life on earth.

I’m confused about your comment. Can you elaborate?

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Continuing to fixate on short-term problems like bridging a generational gap—which incidentally we’ve survived many times in anthropological history—by continuing policies with long-term ramifications is not a good plan.

At some point we need to come to terms with the fact that continuous population growth is not tenable. Whether the population cap is 10 billion or 100 billion, the fact of the matter is that we will eventually hit it. We can’t keep procrastinating because we’re unwilling to resolve the challenges you’ve mentioned in a more effective manner.

Call me an optimist, but if we’re unable to change our habits as a species, perhaps a well-needed revolution will kick us into action.

How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion? We’re already on track to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years.

I believe that as a society, we should have a long-term plan and a goal for our species’s population count, because simply offering incentives for continued growth in order to continue funding generational gaps in our pyramid scheme of social welfare is untenable. Ultimately we will reach the logistical capacity of a functional welfare state, to say nothing of all the other problems.

That seems somewhat unfair towards people with other interests who aren’t being subsidized.

It’s odd that this should need to be pointed out, but allow me help. The line was added to suggest it is a possible DUI. Driving under the influence of drugs is generally recognized as a contributing factor to accidents.

If this were true, then why are Rotten Tomato ratings displayed prominently across Google TV?

(I understand that nuance isn’t welcome on Lemmy, so please forgive me for contributing this.)

I wasn’t aware that Elon Musk was a consultant for the Russian Armed Forces.

Thank you for your concern, but the comment was, as I said, tongue in cheek.

I’m confused about why you’re being so hostile. My only intention is to understand the rationale behind labeling the UK plug as the safest. We’ve already identified that the manner of how it fits into a wider, modern domestic setting is antiquated and other standards and plugs need to fit this purpose. You for example called out IEC 60309 for EVSE, SN441011 for household appliances, and the risks that plug fuses introduce through the nature of them needing to be repaired by an unskilled layperson with analogies to similarly unsafe practices.

If other plugs provide safe alternatives for the issues I’ve reiterated, shouldn’t we be looking at those plugs as safer alternatives?

The word “lego” doesn’t originate from before the 15th century—in fact Legos themselves don’t go nearly that far back—so the common rules for modern English grammar apply.

By this logic, a potato is the best in terms of electrical safety. That’s of course tongue in cheek, but if we’re reducing plug capabilities in the interest of calling them safe, USB-A 1.0 is the “safest” because it only outputs 5V at 3A.

I’m sure I don’t need to point out how the plug is part of a broader electrical system and forms an integral part of it. Excusing the plug from an entire host of applications by stating that a different standard solves for that is the very point of my comment.

SN441011 is the Swiss system that through its 2-, 3- and 5-pin design supports single- and three-phase for up to 11 kW in domestic applications.

As an aide, regarding fuses in UK plugs: Putting the onus of electrical safety on the user for home repairs with a screwdriver is, in my opinion, inherently unsafe, especially when there’s no safe backup through a circuit breaker. Imagine an impatient user replaces a burnt fuse with a piece of aluminum foil.

There’s no UK standard for three-phase and high amperage sockets or plugs. In fact, UK sockets don’t support 16A three-phase at all, so if you have higher power needs (for example for EV charging) you’re left with having to install a dedicated wall box that uses an entirely different connector than the 3-pin UK plug, BS 1363.

Given this incompatibility, how can you argue that UK sockets are better, for instance, than SN 441011?

To say nothing of how comically giant every appliance plug needs to be, regardless of how low its wattage is?

I suspect that the parents either knew or suspected that Bobby drowned in the lake and had gone with the kidnapping story from the start, then had to double down when the police presented them with some kids.

I understand what the word means, but in which domain are the effects unpredictable? In terms of policy and enforcement of what may or may not be genetically modified, or what the genetic outcome would be of gene modification? I agree with the prior.

What do you mean with unforeseen effects in this context?

It’s an interesting ethical debate.

I have a hereditary condition which passes only by the X chromosome, so should I, as a man, abort a daughter? Because now the risk is too high and I’ve elected to simply not have children. It would be great if I could fix the single swapped base pair that would otherwise cause disfigurement and life-long health problems.