You cite Facebook as an example of no meaningful content yet put all the blame upon Google?
Maybe content creators are just incentivised into giving 90 percent of the public what they want.
The content added to Facebook was not what made the web what it was. The content indexed by Google, in turn, it was. The countless blogs or cooking recipes, fan sites, etc, were overriden with SEO filler slop over the years.
OP example of what a content-devoid internet would look like is exactly what Facebook is now. A site that started as the place to connect and share with your friends and family now is just a place that is filled with AI slop and emptiness.
I figure if 90% of everything is crap, https://medium.com/luminasticity/90-crap-48e4c79419a9 then if the amount of available content has doubled in a decade, that is probably just too much crap to find the good stuff.
The other problem being the availability of healthy food.
Those without the time or facility to cook are dependent upon stores selling convenience foods which are anything but healthy, those foods labelled as such being some of the worst examples.
Despite not being overweight and taking regular exercise, I have recently been diagnosed as diabetic and now see the world in a different light. It really is quite shocking how many aisles in. a typical supermarket are stocked with complete junk food.
>The other problem being the availability of healthy food. Those without the time or facility to cook are dependent upon stores selling convenience foods which are anything but healthy, those foods labelled as such being some of the worst examples.
Is it impossible to buy healthy food in your region? The average American spends six hours a day watching TV, do they really not have enough time to cook a meal? Just how many people do not have a cooker in their home? Is it cheaper to buy preprocessed food rather than the raw ingredients in that meal?
It seems to me the real problem is the supply of food is abundant and corporations have gone to extraordinary lengths to make it very palatable. Add in peoples tendency to chose the easy option (ready meals, eating out) and you get an obesity epidemic.
Everyone has 24 hours a day. We could all move to the cheapest CoL areas, grow our own food, and run marathons all day every day. Everyone, including you, could sneak one more rep in instead of some activity in the day. This holier-than-thou attitude of dismissing people is lame.
Empathy can go a long way and the more we can have for each other the better we will collectively be.
>This holier-than-thou attitude of dismissing people is lame.
If you want to solve the problem you have to understand it. I see lots of dubious suggestions like lack of time when working hours have reduced massively in recent history[1].
>Empathy can go a long way and the more we can have for each other the better we will collectively be.
If our read my second paragraph then you will see I'm not laying the blame at individuals.
There's a difference between "I want to pick exactly where we sit and am willing to pay extra for it", and "I want my family to sit together, but don't care where that is on the plane, and I'm already paying a lot for 4 tickets, so don't have extra budget to pay more to to pick where I sit."
Also, I can't imagine people who end up sitting next to a kid whose parent isn't nearby, or the stewards who have to deal with such children would be happy about the arrangement either.
Well I am not a marketing guy, but from the little I know, this is price discrimination between a group of 4 who do not mind sitting anywhere, and a group of 4 that must sit together. Sure, your needs may be higher, but each need has a price, and sitting together is one such need. Just need to plan the $$$$s for that.
Well, people generally don't like being on the receiving end of price discrimination. So you shouldn't be surprised when people refuse to fly with you because you charge you more to fly with them just because you have children with you.
Although, I wonder if maybe the real reason for this might be to discourage families from flying with them....
If having my children sit next to me is important then I expect to have to pay extra for this since this is mostly how airline pricing works. In other words, it isn't perfect in all use cases, like not every seat is next to a window and I may have to pay extra for this rather than have to take my chances.
Children should have privileges adults don't have. As they aren't full independent adults, it's fair to give them special treatment. Nobody is born an adult, so every person in society will get these benefits at some point of their lives.
At the same time, I don't see why airliners shouldn't be able to charge less for tickets that are truly "we will put you whatever we want irrespective of your needs and wants". Children who need to be by their parents shouldn't buy these tickets, the same way children shouldn't buy adult shoes.
If a passenger cannot take care of themselves for whatever reason, I think they should be allowed to sit next to whoever takes care of them without having to pay extra.
Indeed and there already is a legal concept for that called a 'dependent'. And both the caregiver and dependent already receive special consideration under various laws and regulations. Requiring airlines to seat them together is both consistent with existing concepts, and just the right thing to do.
Place shuffling in planes is a novel "invention". Putting existing features behind a Paywall isn't being smart and innovative. it's a signal for to little competition and a cash grap.
I'm no expert either but I do know that we have been importing significant amounts of energy from France for quite some time. This suggests to me that France has a huge surplus rather than just matching their own need.
France built out a huge number of Nuclear reactors in the 80s. Some 70% of it's electricity comes from Nuclear. Nuclear has a very low marginal cost so when it's up and running you want to run it at full power as much as possible. At times of low demand in France this means exporting as much of it as they can at whatever rate they can get for it. It's not that they have a huge surplus overall, it's just the economics make it better for them to export rather than load following.
People insisting on subscribing to Spotify instead of being subjected to constant ads and propaganda may have significantly disrupted this business model already?
I don't know for sure but I'm guessing a significant source of revenue for Ford is the supply of replacement parts for existing vehicles. They can likely survive on this source of income for at least the next 20 years.
Some people are willing to pay inflated prices for concert tickets so the market has adapted accordingly. The performers must benefit from this indirectly otherwise, as you say, why would a set price not work?
I can see the argument for secondary sales but if you buy a ticket for an event and then decide not to go then you should take the financial hit, not make a profit.
I believe the purpose of these safety warnings is more about mitigating liability for accidents rather than any true concern for traveller's well being.
I have always used a generous amount of wood glue to the joints of any self-assembly furniture with the result being the furniture stays in one piece long after the finishing material has become worn and shabby.
The fixings supplied and the material construction are just not capable of providing a solid, permanent result otherwise.
I would think that applying glue contributes to the reason why the furniture doesn't survive the first owner/disassembly.
Unless this is meant for subsequent owners/houses?
I've never had an issue with IKEA disassembly/assembly having moved/lived/purchased across 3 continents, but I have always done my own assembly/disassembly.
reply