Not food but we definitely grew up in Australia with drinks that tasted a little of detergent from a generation of families that never had a dishwasher.
Far less common now as dishwashers became cheaper and more ubiquitous.
Algorithmic choices are likely a major contributor to the phenomenon. If posting vacation photos on Facebook gets interactions from friends and family, more people will do it. If it doesn't, fewer people will.
I won’t hear a bad word said about Heroic launcher. It’s almost literally magic. Up until I tried it I was still dual booting windows on my gaming laptop.
When they got GOG cloud saves to work with cyberpunk 2077 I sent them money.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. This satellite is producing data that is a common good (not unlike the Bureau of Labor Statistics data). There are lots of use cases for such data. Just because one use case doesn't cover the whole cost to collect the data doesn't mean it's irrelevant to point out the loss.
I think you do see the point I’m making, since you correctly identified it and provided a rebuttal :)
Phrased more accurately: is the value from the sum of the use cases for the data gathered by this satellite greater than the cost of putting it into orbit and operating it? Or even just the continued cost of operating it?
The fact that the article mentions farmers as the only potential non-governmental beneficiary of this information makes me believe the answer to that question is no, it wasn’t.
The article mentions more than farmers using the data. Not sure how anyone can take you seriously when the first paragraph mentions oil companies using the data as well..
And what do they use the data for, exactly? If it was vitally important to their operations and profitability, don’t you think the authors would have explained specifically how they would suffer if this data was discontinued?
The reason they don’t is obvious. They don’t use this data at all. The government uses it to monitor their emmissions and browbeat them into funding green initiatives to pay for their carbon sins. It’s used to make charts that congressmen use as props on the house and senate floor when they promote climate regulation. It’s used to make sensational fundraising emails for the Sierra club and eye-catching headlines at NPR and CNN.
But also one guy at the Iowa State extension office used it in a few papers, so yeah, farmers use this vital information, too.
No. This statement doesn’t reflect the reality of how private interests have ever worked, especially in the USA. If the idea here is to defend the modern US war on reality it isn’t getting far because it has no basis in the history of any publically funded research that was exploited by private interests.
Actually, I think the problem here is that he's reducing it to a cost-benefit analysis that applies to a single corporation alone. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted and generally unable to plan for or see into the future more than 1-3 financial quarters.
Facilitating investment in long-term things that benefit the country or humanity as a whole is literally one of the reasons we have governments. Putting men on the moon didn't make any profit, but a whole slew of discoveries and inventions that happened before that could happen definitely made improvements to everyone's lot.
How does this satellite benefit humanity as a whole? Why should US taxpayers fund it in its entirety if other people are reaping the benefit?
Do you seriously believe the US government, given its profligate spending over the past three decades, is somehow less short sighted than its corporations, who at least try to maintain their long term financial solvency?
Putting men on the moon provided the know-how to put a nuke on an ICBM and send it straight to the doorstep of the Kremlin. The other benefits and discoveries were purely coincidental.
But at least those benefits were real and valuable. What benefits has this satellite provided that are anywhere close to what we got out of the space program?
The seeds were planted after Nixon resigned and it was decided to re-shape the media landscape and move the overton window rightwards in the 1970s, dismantling social democracy across the west and leading to a gradual reversal of the norms of governance in the US (see Newt Gingrich).
It's been gradual, slow and methodical. It has definitely accelerated but in retrospect the intent was there from the very beginning.
You could say that was when things reverted back to "normal". The FDR social reconstruction and post WW2 economic boom were the exception, anomaly. But the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing alright. Sure, they have some big size problems (Sweden in particular) but daily life for the majority in those countries appears to be better than a lot of people in the Anglosphere.
A difference also is neoliberalism ramping up in that time period of the 80s. The concept of privatizing anything and everything and bullshit like “private public partnership” are fairly recent.
It's been an unfortunate truth that the US has long been a country that's flirted with fascism. Ultimately, Thaddeus Stevens was right in his conviction that after the civil war the southern states should've been completely crushed and the land given to the freedmen.
The Constitution was clearly written for rich land owning white men first of thought, and everything else being left out or only in fractions. They added some checks and balances as a hand wavy idea of trying to stay away from autocracy, but they kind of made them toothless. I'd guess they just didn't have the imagination that people would willingly allow someone to go back towards autocracy since they were fighting so hard to leave it.
Experienced devs coming in to TypeScript are also trigger happy with 'any' until they work out what's going on. Especially if they've come from Javascript.
This is something I hope will happen. I can see small dev shops being able to do things like big migrations on legacy code they couldn’t contemplate before. I’m not so optimistic on the creation of new jobs though.
Far less common now as dishwashers became cheaper and more ubiquitous.