What makes you think that the universities can survive without the current staffing levels? I assure you that with the maze of current funding structures, reporting requirements, travel planning, visa work, unfunded government mandates, etc., they cannot. The only way that they could survive is if the entire structure, and many laws changed. The unfortunate problem with that is then all US universities wouldn't be able to be the best in the world. Top US Universities wouldn't' be able to bring in the best from around the world, research at Universities would dwindle to a fraction of the current amount. Communication and knowledge sharing between peers at other institutions would shrink. The same people who currently complain loudest about the price of university would howl the loudest and diversity and inclusion offices closed at universities. Student amenities would be stripped. Funding for student mental health would drop. The list goes on and on.
The entire conversation is about laptop and desktop OSes. The complaint is that all OSes for these devices have changed for the worse and continue to do so. These devices will continue to be produced and used, but by fewer people. These people are the ones who hate the UIs in newer OSes.
Most people may move to iOS and Android, but that's a moot point since those aren't the people or the OSes that the article is about.
You ignore the points made in the article by pointing out how more people are consumers on their electronic devices today. You point out how this change affected mobile devices and browser based consumption. However computer users are not a monolithic group. This misses the forest for the trees. Sure, a higher percentage of computer device users are there only for consumption, and can easily have their needs met by a modern smartphone or chromebook, but that's not who the article is about.
The article is focused on how the limitations and changes made for consumption computing has affected the OS design and negatively impacted the users who actually need a desktop or laptop, either to produce or as hobby machines. If the OS is constantly changing and degrading, it may not matter that much to those who only really need a smartphone or tablet, but it has a huge impact on the rest.
Desktop and laptop sales have been dropping for years as more consumers realize that their needs can be met by a mobile device, tablet, or chromebook. Sure the changes probably don't mean much to that market, but that market is fading. Making unnecessary changes which interfere with the UI impact the hardcore users, who will be the base of desktop/laptop users in the near future.
Your argument is essentially that since the changes have little impact to those who don't care, that it shouldn't matter to the rest of us. That's pretty dismissive of a large group of users, and a rather useless observation.
You don't provide any evidence to refute OP, and you use vitriol in your reply.
EV cars use more rare elements that require more mining is true. So one would assume that the initial CO2 generated in the productions to be higher.
The grid isn't 100% renewable so there is plenty of co2 produced in running an EV.
EV batteries wear out around 100000 miles, requiring a costly(both $$ and CO2 production) replacement. Meanwhile ICE cars today can regularly approach 200000 miles before replacement.
With those three things considered, I highly doubt that CO2 production is impacted all that strongly by switching to an EV.
I don't think reddit and in particular /r/science should be held aloft as a beacon of reason and good thinking. The pseudo science and junk that is regularly upvoted there proves that they should more frequently question the basic competence of the researchers and reviewers.
The larger factories existed within the currently high government regulation, so assuming larger factories would result from less regulation isn't in evidence.
This is less of a "free market" problem than it is an overregulation problem. The article states that the primary issues are state granted monopolies and tariffs on imports, neither of which are "free market".
>if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore.
The minor tweaks to make capitalism work still allow private ownership, free exchange of goods, and a system based on the movement of capital.
The changes to make communism work, make it not communism by definition. If you don't have central planning then how are goods and services created and allocated? By a free market? That's capitalism!
Capitalism requires minor tweaks to work, such as anti- monopolistic laws, but the tweaks required to make communism work, such as removing central planning, make it not communism anymore.
You need to do a lot more reading if you think equality of opportunity and equality of output are the same. Saying that everyone should have equal rights and treatment under the law is a far cry from saying that everyone deserves the same outcomes in life.
I assume that you're conflating equal opportunity( via rights and treatment under the law) with equal starting points, but they are far from the same things. Equal starting points are going to be impossible, literally a pipe dream without creating some form of dystopian nightmare that prevents people from having children, and instead farms genetically equal embryos who are then raised by the state. Which will also necessitate monoculture and risk humanity due to the lack in individual variation.