article paid by google

At least you can understand how others justify their continued use based on the lack of no perfect alternative, even in the face of the current solutions imperfections.

Yeah, it's also important to note that Grok is a reliable source of information about fuck all.

I just don't believe that method will be as successful as you may think.

Pumped up kicks is still relevant

You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity From the article: Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour. This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future. So I get this right? I'm naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies' behaviour under control, whereas you're realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright. And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn't introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?

This is what I want to know also. "AI textbooks" is a great clickbait/ragebait term, but could mean a great variety of things.

if Apple really hits a late Jan/early Feb launch for Vision Pro, it’s going to set the tone for the whole XR market in 2025. speed stars