Shouldn't this be a social program, subsidized by the government??

How much of this, I wonder, is that Qualcomm has patents on things integral to the physics? So that inherently anyone else trying to make a modem has to use alternate means to make it work, which are basically poisoned by the standard so of course they won't work as well?

It can't really be that hard to make a radio from a physics standpoint, but I bet it can be difficult to work around patents. Especially if it's a "dumb" patent like "put a filter here" which should have invalidated the patent due to "anyone skilled in the art" of radio devices... but because of it competitors can't put a filter in that exact spot, so have to figure out some other place to put it which of course doesn't work as well because it isn't where you'd want it...or "we set this frequency so it can only be done using a component with this material's band gap, and we have the patent on this material" or something like that.

I’ve seen this from personal experience. Pure coding jobs are evaporating; the only way to make a living is by building new products or shifting into sales and marketing related work.

I would flame the Windows install and just go with Linux. Win11 is better off in a closed-off VM anyway.

Why is this even news? Everyone has credentials that have leaked. It’s frustrating, but that’s the risk of using any service these days.

If manglement tried to put me or anyone on my team on a PIP, I would take the severance pay and find a new job. And probably give the idiots in charge the finger on the way out.

Reforestation is a thing, at least in North America. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has planted millions of acres of new forest (see United Nations FAO and USDA Forest Service for data). The U.S. currently is planting about 60,000 acres of trees annually, plus another 130,000 acres of regeneration.

The people overseeing this work are forestry experts, so one can assume they are planting the correct trees for a locale, in the right concentrations and groupings.

The real problem is that Brazilians are chopping down millions of acres of forest every year (albeit, decreasing). This is insanity. Also, because of food shortages and famines, some Africans have been stripping bark from trees, as well as harvesting the wood. Deforestation of that continent not only removes habitat for fauna (chimps, birds, etc.) but also leads to expansion of desert. Africa's just a total disaster.

the posting software eliminated the subscripts; that should read CO2 and O2 above. :D

About a million tons of plastics are being dumped into the oceans every year, and this material is suspected of damaging the ecosystem. Algae absorb CO and emit O quite efficiently; 60% to 70% of the Earth's oxygen is made this way. Another 10% to 20% or so comes from several huge rain forests, notably the Amazon.

We should focus on eliminating plastic and other potentially damaging substances from the ocean, and secondarily perhaps limit over-fishing that distorts the food chain.

Also, plant more trees. There's no better, or cheaper, way to de-carbon-ify the atmosphere than trees, especially during their major growth years.

This seawater-filtering scheme sounds expensive and strange, and probably would create more problems than it solves.

It's just a small test project, funded by the UK government, a proof of concept. How exactly it will prove the concept, though, is left as an exercise to the reader.

I always laugh / cry when people say something about "stop indoctrination!" because what they really mean is "we don't want that kind of indoctrination, we want this kind!"

What we really need as a society is critical thinking skills, the ability to draw conclusions from evidence instead of reporting only supporting evidence for a preconceived conclusion and suppressing other evidence. We need to have people that can determine if the evidence is complete and conclusive, not just matching what people want emotionally.

I think you would see a price increase. In most food markets what happens is food is set at a price; if it sits on the shelf long enough it gets discounted. If it still doesn't sell it is thrown out. So what will happen is the the shelf-time of non-discounted prices will be longer relative to discounted price, meaning that the price level increases.

The other option is that the stock of goods at a low price sells out first, leaving only the higher-priced alternatives remaining on the shelves, also pushing up the price level.

I have never seen an example ever where increased demand leads to decreased price except where supply increases. If you have an example otherwise... I'd be interested in seeing it.

I don't disagree that this might happen in the medium to long term, as people see that prices are up (because of more money to spend on things) so they might be willing to invest to create companies to take some of that new profit margin.

But this lags the initial influx of money, meaning the final price level is more likely higher than the initial price level, even after new business come online.

Also, if there is less money in banks for the reserve ratio, or there is less money available for "investors" to create new companies, who do you think (and, with what money?) is going to be creating these new companies?

it would just be redistributing the same amount of money around. This would not cause inflation since the same amount of dollars would be chasing the same amount of goods.

Only in aggregate. It's generally the case that the ultra-rich are not buying the goods and services that the lower classes are trying to buy. This means that if you suddenly shift a bunch of money (spending power) to the lower classes, there will very likely be an increase in prices for the goods those lower classes purchase because you can increase their money supply way faster than the supply of the things they want to buy.

In fact, the argument goes that it will be a double-whammy because the thing "the rich" buy are companies that generally make stuff. So if you shift spending to the masses, you will increase demand for goods and services while simultaneously decreasing the available supply of new businesses.

An approach that actually gives the desired outcome on all fronts is to tax the rich and directly create new businesses, therefore creating new supply of all goods and services, dropping prices, and likely employing people. It also helps protect against monopoly by ensuring a steady supply of competition. Sadly, this idea is "too left" for most people.