And how come one wanting to have a say on their lives is equated with one wanting to have a say on other people's deaths?

Tolerance is about letting other people be and giving them rights, not about letting you decide on other people's being and letting you take their rights.

This is so dead simple existence 101 that one can assume but malice (or an ungodly amount of crayzo ideology) from you.

Why exactly is this worse?

It is an optional feature that the majority of people will be using, making herd immunity for those who do not

What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that's so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You're only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).

Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can't find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with "regular" coffee that's literally 10 times cheaper.

Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you're a privileged minority.

Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.

Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they're done by someone. You seem to be speaking "privileged minority".

Did you even consider that your formula doesn't even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you're poor to like 70% if you're rich.

At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that's (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That's the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.

Even with a top 5% salary, you're not going to pile up all that much.

The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.

Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)

Then you're not paying attention. Plenty of such protests-with-thousands in a few major places that were overwhelmed. Barcelona, Maiorca, Lisbon, Algarve, probably most of Greece, Italy, Southern France, etc...

It is not false that the government has blame, however, there's plenty of preverse incentive in here. Land prices skyrocketed and a lot of very well positioned individuals got very well in life.

At the end of the day, being a decent human being doesn't require laws. If you know you're competing with locals whose rents already are higher than their salaries, with their businesses that now can't support rents any longer and generally browsing fake-local-crap (and I assure you that most mass tourism is), then you're just making yourself unwelcome.

Even the "tourists are injecting money in the local economy" argument is in a good part bullshit. Ofc that some of it loops to everyone else, but the gains are generally very poorly distributed and many times negative as that money destroys homes and jobs.

If you go to some parts of Lisbon, you're not going to be able to hear one single word of Portuguese. Just yday I heard about a guy complaining that tourists attempted to forbid him from going into a waterfall near his home because... It ruins their photos and they waited in line to have them while the guy just "skipped the queue". Mass-tourists can't just figure that it is a country where people live and not a theme park, the "we paid to come here, we have rights" argument is heard plenty of times.

Nope. At least in Lisbon (which is probably just the same as Barcelona) the vast majority of them go straight at the tourist traps. They barely get any contact with the culture beyond having some foreigner guide pretend he knows about the city point at things while driving their rickshaw in the most annoying possible way. At the end of the day they end up eating whatever sounds foreign while listening to foreign music. This is an actual common complaint people have in Lisbon, that it is not Lisbon, it has been pretending it is Disneyland for the last 10-15 years.

There are places where people do that kind of tourism you're describing. Barcelona, Lisbon and a few more popular places, for the vast majority of tourists, is not.

As for the "support" argument, they mostly support low-wage low-qualification boss-owns-50-other-places businesses while, collaterally, raising the expenses of every other business, prompting those to just close the doors and move elsewhere. If you are qualified in basically anything, the job market in Lisbon is a mess. Plenty of people do lie about their qualifications to state them as lower than they are, just in order to get these crap jobs. The purchasing power fell, locals are actually much poorer since the mass tourism wave that started when the world rebound from 2008. The median salary in Lisbon is like 1000€ while a rent for a cube starts at like 800-1200€.

As for the "yell at the government", I don't know about the situation in Barcelona, but in Portugal, the far-right just received 20% of the votes because they are the only ones addressing those problems (in a very "close the doors" kind of way). Some municipalities straight up started not giving a damn at as they cash in more from the tourists than from the local's taxes. Oeiras and Cascais, two kind of famous tourist destinations next to Lisbon straight up are renaming official stuff to English in order to appease their real clients (eg. Not the people who live there).

You just happen to be conflating hard limitations of a physical substance with arbitrary soft limitations. Of course you cant replace chips with sand despite both having a % of silicon. Those are entirely different things.

Wine and gasoline aren't the same thing at all, they just happen to have one common element in their composition.

The iPad and a computer ARE the same thing. The label is something the brand puts on, it is not an hard limitation of the universe.

I personally don't care if IKEA says that their bedroom furniture is for the bedroom. If I decide to use it as living room furniture I can and IKEA should not have a say, however they probably would if they could.

Brands like to have that weird control when they can, generally not in worries we're doing something weird with stuff but for some strategic benefit, such as not cannibalising sales of something else.

If IKEA could bind pieces of furniture to types of room, you'd be more likely to have to buy more furniture over your lifetime. It would also maybe prevent them from having to comply with some regulation with the "our furniture is not furniture, is an... habitational support"! argument.

They partially solve the fuel and the bad air problems. In exchange they damage roads way more (I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance) and that also creates substantially more rubber micro particle pollution. They also happen to be more dangerous in the event of a crash. Plus the additional challenges with grid load, which some people dismiss with silly ideas like having said cars act like load balancers (that would be a mess to scale).

In most cases, EVs are not a solution to mobility, they are a solution to save the car industry from real solutions to climate change, namely spamming trams, trains and buses (in sparse locations) all over the place.

Y'know that you can see the requests your browser makes, right? Mind putting in here a screenshot of HIBP uploading your password or any complete hash of it?

Failing to provide that grants you the "talking shit out of ya ass" award.

Did it occur to you that most things in nature have radioactive isotopes and that for nuclear reactors we look for the most radioactive bunch, refine them to remove the least radioactive bits and then use them in reactors?

If you reverse that process (well, not really a reversal as you now have different atoms) and re-dillute stuff in nature in a sensible way, you're not going to get anything that is substantially above ambient levels. The oceans are tremendously big and the waste water is already quite treated. One is not going to notice a change in relative terms anywhere on earth unless high-precision equipment is used.

This is not a very-scientifically-accurate comment, but if it was you would not understand so lets keep it like this.

Simple reason being that there's no notoriously good OS for Samsung phones.

Graphene is highly focused on not being annoying while keeping privacy intact. You can, for example, have Google Play Services, within a sandbox. Everything can be denied network access, or any access really, on a per app basis.

It also relies on Google's security chip to keep the chain of trust intact. The boot sequence and your private keys are kept intact that way. Not everyone documents and opens their hardware as well as Google. Samsung is notoriously terrible and full of it when it comes to allowing you to do your own thing.