I recently made the jump from a macbook to a thinkpad with linux ubuntu. For gestures - Fusuma (https://github.com/iberianpig/fusuma) is pretty stable and feels almost entirely like a native macbook
Old wise man once told not the fastest, but the most successful way -
"If you want to make good money, focus on creating value and money will take care of itself"
I would rather we focus on cutting down the rest of the 90% of emissions than the natural emissions which have been occurring since before the industrial revolution messed it up.
There is a fine balance in nature and maybe cows are the wrong place to experiment.
Look I'm not putting up an argument where neither of us have the data to look at this factually, but I don't think we had any problems in the pre industrial revolution era.
My point is - The focus should be on optimizing the sources that contribute the most to these emissions.
The article mentions this could reduce Australias ghg emissions by 10%, figures I've found for the UK suggest 3%. That's a massive cut no matter how you cut it, and shouldn't be ignored.
You cant just say cows were domesticated before the industrial revolution, ergo cows are ok, and shouldn't be part of the solution. Animal husbandry has changed massively in the past 2/300 years, you are comparing apples and oranges.
My 2 orders of magnitude guess is conservative. Population has increased by well over one order of magnitude since the industrial revolution. Per capita meat/dairy consumption accounts for the rest.
I do think there's a point here to be made. I'd imagine the helicopter and personal flight space to look a lot different if regulation about flight would never be introduced, for one reason or another.
Also, How do you determine who won the argument? How will the Jury decide the winner? this is all subjective
Winner for traditional debates between two individuals can be decided on quite simply. Whereas, for this scenario, the person staking the argument will have to defend against the whole population trying to bring it down. It won't be a "healthy" competition by any means.
I listened for a long time, learned a lot as well.
This made me think - is there any website that facilitates you to do such public conferences on zoom like clients. Basically a bunch of people who are interested in a certain topic could join and chime in - go from topic to topic. It could be a very healthy discussion. People could post and schedule meetings and essentially anyone who wants to learn could join. I do listen to podcasts often, but such meetings would be pretty different than podcasts.
Does this already exist?
I am not aware of anything like what you describe, but I did see some people in that Zoom call suggesting the creation of a Discord and/or Slack channels.
However what I fear is that they will become like any other modern forum in that you will need heavy moderation, people will try to troll, etc.
The beautiful thing about Jonathan's call was it's spontaneity I think, and that everyone was so excited to talk about the vulnerability that the group had a single focus.
I might be too cynical so maybe it's a good idea, and if someone suggest a place/site/forum to have these kind of discussions I would definitely try it out.
