For some time we had a bin lined with a bag in the garage large enough for two weeks of our waste. Within the house were small bins, about the size of a shoebox stood on its end, with no bags. When they fill, we tipped it into the garage bin. Two bags a month is pretty good in my mind.

Smell, vermin, rotting exposed food waste were all solved by the garage bin having a lid.

Don’t tell Santorini that.

Could you elaborate on this comment?

Oh I didn’t mean ‘end of the line’ to come off as though I have experience in the food industry. I’ve worked in waste disposal at end point facilities and have seen all what the grocers toss away on a daily basis.

Thousands of apples rolling out of a truck is a surreal sight. It looks like a physics simulation on a high end computer. The first few times I almost found myself in awe. At least until I remembered where it was happening.

Don’t get me wrong, most organic waste being disposed of was spoiled, but a truck or two a day of edible food was typical.

Unfortunately, I have experience at the end of the line so to speak, and the number of trucks disposing of otherwise edible food is disheartening. Not to discount your experience of course, but not seeing it happen doesn’t mean it isn’t happening elsewhere.

Though it should be, donating like this is not mainstream. It’s logistically cheaper to fill the dumpster than to haul it to a food bank.

The thought of wrapping a banana with lettuce as a snack is quite funny to me.

Damn, a pocket dyno was not on my bingo card for this year.

This could be done for cars too, though with near every vehicle capable of doubling or tripling motorway speeds without modification, I’m not sure what the point of measuring it would be. Certainly it would be ideal if vehicles were required to have a limiter, but that wouldn’t have any impact on speeding down city streets.

Regardless, that speed on a scooter is just asking for a bottle cap to ruin your life.

It might have been the sixth closure of the day that person was involved in.

Unfortunately when a child is raised in environment where they never fail, they can develop into adults that perceive themselves as never wrong. This sometimes deludes these individuals into talking only with condescension to those around them, as if they are on a literal high horse where engaging a two way conversation is beneath them.

Text conversations online aren’t really a good way to get through to them so knowing when to let go is key. Sad though, in a non specific way, for the people in their lives that must ask ‘is so and so invited’ before accepting an invitation.

I haven’t defended this person. I’m not sure I’ve heard any of her music, even her age (born this millenia!) came as a surprise.

What I have done is attempt to politely explain a different perspective that I see that perhaps you didn’t. Comments by yourself on the other hand are diametrically opposed to open thought, respectful argumentation, and basic decency.

You know well the aphorism about everyone else being the asshole, I’m sure.

When I was growing up, I didn’t even have a concept of a billionaire. I remember considering that to be a millionaire you had to be able to spend a million dollars and still have a million left over. In effect, a person wasn’t a millionaire until they had reached the second million. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire threw me for a loop because the top prize was only a million dollars.

When I was a young teenager I was quite pleased at saving $300 to buy a new bike because after I bought it, I still had just over a hundred dollars left. It was euphoric to have been a hundredaire for a few days.

Not sure why that popped into my head reading your comment, but there you go.

I saw a few outlets estimate Eilish is worth somewhere in the tens of millions not quite hundreds. From this Rolling Stones article, also about the speech, she recently donated 11.5 million. Apparently this type of thing isn’t out of the norm for her.

Equivalently, Zuckerberg would need to donate around 30-100 billion to match Eilish proportionally. To bring it back to earth, you or I would need to donate thousands - if not tens of thousands - to be proportionally similar. I won’t speak for you, but I’m not in the habit of donating double digit percentages of my salary.

You appear to be quite irritated at people asking you questions about your opinions.

From the Rolling Stones article about this same speech, it appears Eilish donated an eight figure sum of money recently. This is remarkable given multiple outlets seem to estimate her net worth also being an eight figure sum.

We lowly ‘consumers’ on the other hand tend only to have a five or six figure net worth, ignoring the home some of us are fortunate enough to own. None of us are donating 10-20% of our net worth periodically (except the Mormons). It seems a bit out of touch to rail against someone that appears this philanthropic when there are thousands of billionaires the same energy could be pitted against instead.

I’d argue it’s not the same for wealthy individuals as they can leverage their net worth to borrow cash at low interest rates, but I do see the point you were making.

As for the initial comment by TeamAssimilation, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say Nvidia’s current ‘worth’ is fanciful. It’s a number beyond any tangible understanding. I can’t even wrap my head around how many trees are on this planet, never mind double that number.

‘Worth’ is a subjective word, and I don’t think you and TeamAssimilation were using it the same way. Just because a brick is worth a dollar and someone uses a million of them to build a house, doesn’t mean the house is worth a million dollars - even if that’s what it cost. What if it looks like this?

Even so, a market cap in the trillions is still an abstract concept. Nvidia can’t use its ‘worth’ to buy Apple for example.

Ding ding

Canada has a minister of artificial intelligence, who does not regulate specific in-vehicle software.

I’m the minister of wheat, but don’t ask me to regulate banana bread.

From a quick search, there are around 3,000 billionaires with over ten trillion US dollars combined. Even if we assume the poorest of them only have a handful of security personnel, a socialist revolution in terms of pitchforks and guillotines wouldn’t get far up the ladder.

These individuals have politicians strung up as marionettes, so the world’s militaries aren’t going to help. Surely if more than two of these billionaires end up Thompson’d, the military would probably be used to protect them.

The revolution that could work is pretty straightforward, but it has a barrier to entry. People need to vote. Not just for the top either, but all the way down to city councillors. We’d need to see landslide elections to overcome gerrymandering, but if we managed to elect a significant number of incorruptible politicians all at once, mountains could be moved in one cycle.

Oh to dream.

Forgive me but while I could agree the primary purpose for his actions may not be philanthropic intent, it certainly has some positive butterfly effects - like the research you mention. Maybe it’s not about helping anyone, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t help anyone.

Regardless this isn’t the place to get into the minutiae. My point was that if we put the ten digit club in a cage and told them only one is allowed back out, I’d prefer Gates find victory than someone like Musk.