BananaTrifleViolin

Windows is in no way free. Every new Windows Laptop and PC comes with a license; when you pay for the PC part of that money goes directly to Microsoft.

Microsoft made upgrading to Windows 10 and 11 “free” for those on older hardware who already had paid for a license because they wanted to move people onto the latest versions and stop supporting the old versions. At the same time they’ve been harvesting and selling users data to make even more money.

They are not trying to “kill” Windows, they are trying to change it into a cloud based system too so that you do have to pay a subscription to use it. They want new PCs and Laptops to be essentially nothing more than thin terminals, using your hardware to support their cloud based system but not actually owning any of the software at all.

But they are less bothered about the absolute revenue Windows makes now, and more bothered about making it a walled garden they control and which up-sells you to all their other subscription services under Office, and Xbox.

True but at the same time bees help spread pollinating plants - it’s a two way relationship. They may be commercialised for crops, but they will go to any plants in range and contribute to their spread.

So a method of increasing bee populations may also be helpful in spreading wildflowers and speeding up rewilding efforts.

In addition dramatically increasing bee populations may help resolve issues with pollination such as in some regions of China where damage is so bad that hand pollination is needed for crops. Restoring bee pollinators in those areas may increase crop yields, which in turn reduces the general pressure globally on expanding the use of fertile land for farming.

So while crop/pollen diversity is certainly very important, this kind of research still has potentially big benefits for the environment both in the fight to rewild and slow the spread of land use being moved to farming.

This is a potentially interesting study but there is a key gap which is around the actual health risk.

The figures around safety mg/kg are to do with the rate the toxic materials leach out of an item, not the absolute concentration within the materials or artificial lab based maximum leach rates. The quoted 10 mg/kg is also not an actual limit:

10 mg/kg limit originally proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

The limit orignally proposed is not the same as the actual limit. As far as I can see it is 0.05mg/kg leach into food, 0.04mg/l for toys, and as far as I can see there are no other limits in place. They are essentially being restricted in food contacting materials and toys, and requiring clear labelleling in other uses: https://www.echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/bisphenols

What really matters is under what circumstances the “maximum concentrations of 351 mg/kg” were reached. If that is an artificial lab test with no relatability to real world situations then it’s meaningless. If that rate of leach occurs at body temperature with a bit of moisture then it’s very worrying. But even then the absolute amount of the bisphenols in the products also matters - for example it might be there amount mixed into the plastics in a ear bud is too small to actually be toxic to a human.

Without that information this feels like sensationalist reporting of the findings - the article is implying there is a health risk when there may be none, and they are also implying there is wrong doing or failure of the EU enforcement of its regulations when there may be none.

It is worth reading the disclaimer at the end; while their aims may be laudable they are not conducting independent research and it’s not clear their work is even peer reviewed. Instead this is a single issue lobbying group, part funded by EU funds, producing research with a political aim.

About ToxFree LIFE for All: The ToxFree LIFE for All project (LIFE22-GIE-HU-101114078) is an EU-funded initiative aimed at protecting citizens from hazardous chemical exposure through awareness, testing, and policy advocacy. Partners include VKI (Austria), Arnika (Czechia), dTest (Czechia), TVE (Hungary), and ZPS (Slovenia).
Funded by the EU Life Programme (LIFE22-GIE-HU-ToxFree LIFE for All, 101114078) and the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or other donors. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

At this rate we’ll need a Wine/Proton that runs on Windows to allow you to run Windows software.

So who benefits from $30bn in spending on Laptops and Tablets? Oh Apple and Microsoft. Not students. Surprise surprise.

As with many of these articles there is a big caveat - Gen Z in the USA. It does not follow that this research applies across the world. It’d be interesting to see how other rich countries outcomes are different with their differing approaches to this. For example here in the UK I don’t believe there has been a wholesale move to laptops/tablets for every student in schools. Technology is certainly used but it’s not solely about students using laptops and tablets. Its things like smart wide boards, and the use of digital content to engage attention and so forth. Spending billions on laptops for all would be a scandal when school buildings need renewing for example.

I would hazard to suggest that the US education system is being corrupted in a similar way to other parts of the US state, with big expensive projects decided at state level by the Republicans and Democrats thanks to lobbying, benefiting big companies but not citizens. This is instead of money going to areas of proven benefit such as more teachers, school infrastructure renewal, or funding of homework clubs, after school activities, breakfast clubs or free school meals. Things proven to make a difference across the world but things that don’t benefit big US corporations.

And lets be honest, if you wanted to give every student a laptop you wouldn’t be going to Apple or Microsoft. You’d save money and go for generic hardware and a license free operating system like Linux. But that would be an anathema to both the Democrats and the Republicans, who have signed off huge spending on overpriced tech.

In fairness to Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird are platform agnostic. It’s not really for them to tell users what OS to use. It’d cause them more aggro than its worth from all the people who have differing opinions on what the best OS is or the best distro to use. It’s already a tightrope act keeping their users happy when they announce things like AI in the browser. I think they’re right to focus on their own areas of interest.

Most home users use a PC for internet browsing, watching videos, gaming and maybe a bit of basic word processing - all of which Linux does well and for free.

So yes absolutely, vast majority of people should stop wasting money paying for software licenses and go free.

Nah that’s it. Their logic is seemingly if you don’t give the money to Google it’s not contributing to economic growth.

The article is very biased - it basically suggests young people are unwilling to read, that AI is a good thing and that the wikipedia contributors are being unreasonable. It goes on to talk about how AI has “extracted value” from Wikipedia in an unquestioning way - no mention of compensation to the project, just talking about what a triumph Wikipedia is a source for AI to train on.

The “Simple Summaries” situation is less to do with the summaries and more to do with the risk of AI slop being introduced into Wikipedia unquestioned. The summaries were unchecked and unverified, which add a real chance that wikipedia started serving up inaccurate summaries and undermined it’s own reputation.

In addition that idea that younger generations don’t have the concentration span to “read a wall of text” is pernicious and patronising nonsense part of a general media bias against Gen Z and Gen Alpha. There seems to be this barely questioned narrative that they have short attention spans and are unwilling or even unable to read, just because they grew up in the era of social media like Instagram and latterly Tik Tok.

I’ll give a better hypothesis for why younger generations spend less time on wikipedia: the big tech giants like Google have stolen all the information people have put on there and serve it up in their own summaries on the search engine (preventing click throughs) or through their own AI slop engines. They don’t want people clicking through to Wikipedia, they want them clicking through to an ad. The problem is not Wikipedia, and the problem is not Gen Z or Gen Alpha; the problem - as is frequently the case - is the tech mega-corporations who steal everything (including wikipedia) and sell it back to us with ads or via AI slop.

Both sides announced this to boost their share prices as they’re both growth stocks. Growth stocks are a trap - no company can keep on growing forever.

This announcement is a sign the AI boom is probably soon to end. Nvidia quietly announcing the $100bn deal isn’t going to happen, is Nvidia trying to reduce it’s exposure to the bubble popping. Unfortunately for Nvidia, it’s already way way too deep into the mess, and the vast majority of it’s value is speculative. The question is have they damaged their core business by chasing the AI bubble, and what liabilities will they be left with if their customers go bankrupt and don’t pay them for their product.

Wow it really is heading towards crisis point when you have people saying “keep feeding the beast or it’ll eat us”.

The Microsoft strategy often seems to be “It worked well, but we completely redid it because we need to justify out existence. Now it barely works with new bugs”