The idea behind wisdom of the crowd is that the people who don’t know the answer cancel each other out. It’s the reason why the audience joker on who wants to be a millionaire is so powerful.

Even more obvious in the book, where its mentioned that even the commander can’t afford to eat meat whenever he wants.

Idea: Governments maintain a list of entities that are evading the law like that, and then doesn’t prosecute people who are accused of crimes against such entities. The idea being that if you place yourself outside of the law’s reach, you also place yourself outside of the law’s protection.

OOP has clearly never played “Stellaris”.

4 hours in, can still read it. Agree with your assessment, too.

It’s sort of a strange approach, because this will leave you with the workers who can’t find employment elsewhere.

You can’t go and kill the guy at a point where you know he has events in his yet. (A person’s “yet” is what is known of their personal future). You have to attack him at a point where you he doesn’t have any events in his yet that you know about. This also means no killing Hitler before April 30th 1945.

We’re part of the general public, and we’ve heard both halves.

I just checked Wikipedia, and there it also says small profit. Could be caused by how the satellites are being written off, though.

I was being sarcastic. I simply don’t believe that there’s enough money to be made selling satellite internet to support replacing a large constellation of satellites every 5 years. Especially since Starlink’s competitors use higher up satellites, meaning they don’t have to replace their satellites as often.

And they’re running at a loss.

And those people are famously wealthy.

When 2 satellites collide, the pieces don’t all stay on the same altitude. Even though none of them will be in a stable orbit, all it takes is for one piece to smack into a satellite that’s a bit higher up before it de-orbits, and boom, now you’ve got a debris field that won’t de-orbit.

They won’t be able to price landline based connections out as long as they have to replace their satellites every 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re running at a loss currently.

Isn’t Starlink also too expensive because you have to replace the satellites every 5 years? As in you’d have to sell to basically everybody on earth to be profitable. And they charge 50Euros a month, almost twice as much as I currently pay, and I’m satisfied with my current provider.

So, what do you not like about the Freetube’s UI and UX?

Well, this line of thinking is what got me doing research on whether cats can be fed a vegan diet.

Vegan cats is such a weird hill to die on for vegans. Mostly, because it isn’t a hill. Hills give you tactical advantage. The position with the vegan cats is basically indefensible. I can’t say for sure that it’s impossible to feed cats a vegan diet that’s healthy for them.

I’ve googled ‘vegan cats’ and the first thing I found was an article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/13/cats-may-get-health-benefits-from-vegan-diet-study-suggests. However, a problem I have with the article, and the study linked (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132) is that the methodology was for the pet owners to report the cats health status. I feel that this doesn’t produce a reliable result. The most important factor is that it’s not a controlled environment. The cats may be allowed outside, which means that they would supplement their diet through hunting. My standard for evidence is a study were the cats are fed a vegan diet in a controlled setting.

The second artice found (https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-safe-to-feed-your-cat-a-vegan-diet-213356) Also mentions the same study, which doesn’t meet my standard of evidence. (Cats are fed a vegan diet in a controlled setting where they can’t supplement their diet)

The third result (https://www.bluecross.org.uk/advice/cat/food-and-weight/can-cats-be-vegan) Says that cats can’t be vegan, but then says that some vegan cat foods do exist. No article link as to the veracity of claims.

The fourth result, from the university of Winchester, refers to the aforementioned study (https://www.winchester.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-centre/media-articles/vegan-diet-healthier-for-cats-than-meat-according-to-new-survey.php).

The fifth result, a site called Vegan Outreach (https://veganoutreach.org/vegan-diets-cats/) seems to provide a nuanced take, I skimmed the article, and their conclusion says that more research is needed. They mention another study which tested two vegan diets for cats found them lacking in key nutrients.

Sixth result is the study most of these articles refer to (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132).

Seventh is an article by PETA. I don’t consider these guys trustworthy.

Anyway, those are basically research notes from a short googling session.

So you’re a sadist, but you try to convince yourself it’s okay because you only want to torture people you think deserve it. Of course, no one deserves to be tortured.

Yeah, it does. Perfect opsec is impossible even with encryption.