radix

I remember this one, it's "The one with the C̶̫̪͇̳̀͝o̴̧͎̰͎͆̄͗͒͘f̷̢̖̮̆̐̽͝f̷̢̪̗͉͓͒̍̇͘e̶͖͔̒̉ḛ̷̛̹͎͐̕̕ ̴̗͈̝̽s̷̛̥͈̉̇͊͜͝h̸͓͕̲͇̪̉̀̓̀͝o̴̰̰̝̳͌̍͛ͅp̵̛̝͓̯̄͊͜ͅ ψ"

Managed corporate computers give IT departments control over when updates are released to users and installed. They're usually later than the MS schedule to give more time for testing. Good departments will follow some sort of regular predictable schedule, but bad ones can just drop updates randomly.

Not a lawyer, but the President being "authorized" to act doesn't sound like they must. The next Democratic president could simply look the other way.

Besides, we're in the era of Presidents being allowed to just ignore any inconvenient laws. Not that I think any plausible near-term Democrat president has the will to actually do this, but I'm willing to be surprised.

Youtube alone may be into the (low) zettabytes. I don't know if anything else comes close to that, but streaming services full of 4k movies is a lot of data, so maybe. Entire companies exist on AWS. Billions of individual devices are connected, so depending on your definition, all data that exists anywhere may technically be part of the internet (just not easily available).

Awww, Little Bobby Tables is all grown up.

2.1-2.2 globally is a sustainable rate. Closing borders is an artificial restriction meant to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with sustainability.

If you want a hard minimum on every nation, then it only takes a few going over that rate and worldwide population gets unsustainably large.

Good news, then! The world's population is still growing. The birth rate is well above replacement level. Seems this was all a big fuss over nothing.

Now that just looks like not even attempting to defend your position, you're simply doubling down on restating it.

How about this: What is the "best" number of people on the planet? Is it always more, more, more? Why is the "best" number higher than what we have right now?

Not to put words into your mouth, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but as far as I can tell, your premise seems yo be that population decline is such an existential threat to western civilization that a woman's value is tied up entirely in her ability to reproduce.

If that summary is accurate:

A) Is population decline actually the threat you make it out to be? Your statement doesn't really expand on the point. We're just expected to accept the conclusion with no evidence.

B) Are there other solutions that respect the autonomy and freedom of all people? Compelling anyone to act against their own self-interest is a policy of last resort. I'm highly skeptical, even if you manage to convince people that A) is a catastrophic threat, that the best/only solution is to turn a percentage of the population into unwilling baby factories.

Start saving for the 9090Ti now if you want to run it over 30 fps.

Rail sometimes end up in the middle of a highway because the government already owns the land in that median, and it's a lot easier and cheaper to build there than buying and clearing other routes.

The seeds of urban sprawl with shitty transportation were planted decades ago. Fixing it isn't cheap, but some bandaids are easier than others.

Not sure about this station specifically, just speaking broadly