> A fad diet is a diet that is popular, generally only for a short time, similar to fads in fashion, without being a standard dietary recommendation, and often making pseudoscientific or unreasonable claims for fast weight loss or health improvements.
> The carnivore diet (also called a zero carb diet) is a fad diet
> There is no clinical evidence that the carnivore diet provides any health benefits.[2][12][13] Dietitians dismiss the carnivore diet as an extreme fad diet
The film version is flawed but still well-worth anyone’s time who got this deep in the thread & enjoys hard, near-future sci-fi.
My theory is that 2010: The Year We Make Contact is a lot like Blade Runner, pre- the various Ridley Scott re-cuts.
Drop the voiceover, tweak the ending to be less literal / sentimental, fix some of the FX matting, and you’d be left with one of the best serious SF films since 2001.
I enjoy both; 2010 is more an action piece wrapped with this period-specific visuals, coming also with burden of the real-world Cold War. While 2001 is a cinematic masterpiece that ended times of this naive pulp-scifi with its metal pointy rockets and damsel in distress tropes. The only thing I really really don't like the paint-psychodelic visual that Kubric used instead of Clarke's "Grand Central Station of the galaxy".
I really wish the remaining books would be turn into movies and so the Clarke-Baxter' A Time Odyssey series.
Think of it as the product of the new generation of techies who had their first contact with computers after Mac OSX was released, and now all they can/want to do is emulate Apple and their HIG.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, but it's hard to me to believe that all these kids went to college (or got some type of computer training) only by working with their phones/tablets.
It's not that they only use their phones/tablets, it's that the phone/tablet is the first tool they reach for, the default device, and UI conventions from that space feel correct and natural to them, just as they feel clumsy and jarring to me. (How old am I? Old enough that I still use an opto-mechnical mouse with a ball, because I still like the extra weight and inertia it has over a pure optical mouse!)
GNOME is primarily about making Free Software that is highly accessible. The desktop and GTK toolkit both predate OSX, so I'm not really sure what the purpose of the comparison is.
This criticism is for the more recent versions of GTK.
Killing theming and removing features when they do not have a serviceable usable alternative does not make it more "accessible", it is just the standard "we know it better because we study the behavior of a large group of users" excuse that they give to treat it everyone by the lowest common denominator - just like Apple.
Yeah, that much I generally agree with. Many of the 'opinionated' decisions that came with GTK4 are either regressions or strange and inflexible.
That being said, I will shamefully echo the words of the GNOME maintainers; their goal was not to "kill theming". They wanted to stop distros from shipping themes by default, which was arguably just as deranged but at least somewhat understandable. Nowadays we have stuff like Gradience too, which lets you theme LibAdwaita apps. You're still forced to use the ugly old Adwaita buttons, though.
So... make of it as you will. I left GNOME completely after the GNOME 40 update, I sympathize with people who hate the current desktop. The toolkit itself is "fine" in my unprofessional developer opinion.
Putin has nothing better to do than reading random blogs. He could also setup Twitter account and threaten nuking random countries when Medvedev is in drunken coma and can't do it himself.
It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board.
> we really don't know what else would
We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.
> We know it would solve the problem
No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.
Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.
* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.
I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years.
The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
