> I'm not sure if this emphasizes how few humans there are, or how massive the Earth is. But it's the same point in both cases.
It emphasizes neither!
What you've described is a mass grave.
Quite literally so. If you killed all living humans (8.3billion), the mass-grave you'd have to dig to put them all in one place isn't quite large indeed!
Plus, humans on earth are affected by gravity, so any arrangement of them cubic squares instead of square miles is highly unintuitive, unusual and unnatural to begin with.
This doesn't say anything about habitable or fertile farmable area (measured in km^2, not in km^3) of the planet, or the number of people (that you've conveniently reduced by taking a square root of - twice! by packing them into a tightly packed cube)
For example, if you took 8 billion people and made them hold hands with each other tightly packed (0.5m per person) it would wrap the circumference of earth 100 times.
Now this actually says something about size of the earth!
If you divy up the land surface of earth by population, you get a rather small parcel of land, something to tune of 140m x 140m (this includes deserts and other mostly uninhabitable lands!)
Arable land would be a much smaller parcel of land still!
If you measure human land use in terms of arable land and living space per person, instead of mass-grave metrics the planet Earth is pretty much squarely over-populated and is very much stretching of what is sustainable.
I think your intuition of 140m x 140m being a small parcel of land is rather odd. That's a land the length of about 1.5 football fields, in both directions, for each and every person. So for a small family of 4 people, that'd be nearly 3 football fields of space, in all directions, just for themselves. And there's enough space on Earth for literally everybody to have this, including newborn babies as they are part of the population we're counting.
Now factor in larger families and the fact that some people voluntarily will want to live in close quarters (even given a free choice of all options), and you get many football fields of space, again in all directions, for every single person. This is just absolutely massive. And I think calling deserts uninhabitable is quite odd given everything from Nevada to Saudi Arabia. Basically no lands are truly uninhabitable if we want to inhabit them, even including water as the gradually expanding territory of China is demonstrating.
And, as mentioned already, arable lands have nothing to do with population distribution. As you pack people into smaller quarters, you use up just as much arable land, if not more (due to minimizing decentralization possibilities), than you do with wider distribution.
What do you think American Empire is all about if not controlling the oil rich countries in middle east, as well as extremely oil rich countries like Venezuela?
The only failing here is that America has decaying, hallowed out industrial base where it can't just cheaply mass produce and replenish hi-end rockets and tech to take care of business-as-usual quickly, because everything down to raw materials is just so expensive.
I mean something undeniably WILL happen as the world has roughly 47 years left at current consumption rate of oil.
Whether what's going to happen will be whatever it is you're imagining is completely different story entirely.
Needless to say, If you have a largely deindustrialized country you can't really make any sort of transition happen yourself anyway, not at the grand scale and speed necessary for this endeavour.
Does that make those 47 years irrelevant - just because they will end?
There's no contradiction there. It just makes these last-remaining fossil fuels even more valuable.
Moreover oil use hasn't ramped down, nor is it getting replaced in any substantial way. I suspect people have no slightest clue just how reliant the modern world is on fossil fuels outside of it's use in cars.
> how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country?
Every military action will have an on-paper "justification". It's kind of irrelevant frankly.
But to cut bullshit, it really isn't that complicated.
Venezuela is an extremely oil rich country. Countries in the middle-east region, including Iran are very oil rich.
And that's in large part why US (by this point firmly decaying petrostate propped by petrodollar) is constantly there "meddling" and ensuring all the oil is continuously bought using US dollars.
That is wholly sufficient to explain things.
Every other cartoonish-evil justification "Iran wants to build nukes to bomb US, etc" is largely bullshit (why, for example, Iran doesn't want to nuke.... say Germany or France? hmmm.....)
You're presuming that if they had a choice, they wouldn't accept it.
The reality is that chinese goverment is - overall - delivering results.
People will accept things that bring good outcomes.
There's also upsides from the surveilence and the way things are done in China which makes it way more resilient from outside influence and disruptive bad actors.
Now I don't want the same things in my country, but it suits China to some extent.
For quite a while i was thinking how we're in the phase one: mountains of unmaintainable garbage code being generated... and once the shit hits the fan, some maintainability ceiling gets reached - "the real programmers" will be summoned to clean up and deal with this shit.
Now I've come to realize the error in my ways, this is probably not going to happen.
What will happen is instead is that the ones doing the "shuffling of shit" is just going to also be agents themselves. Prompted by a more senior slop-grammer specialized in orchestrating "shuffling of shit".
This task was famously incredibly difficult back when we had people producing unmaintainable mountains of millions of lines of code, to the point where shipping anything sizable in a working state on time without last minute scope reductions is nearly unheard of.
I can't imagine using AI to add another one to two zeroes to the lines of code counter would help reach the goal post.
Testing to ensure the product works as expected is more than half of the product development labor if you want a quality product. This includes time spends on things like the mandatory "anti-harassment" training any competent HR is forcing you to once in a while even though not related to product delivery (or so I hope - some should be fired for the problems you are causing by not living that training)
LLMs can write a lot of code. they can even write a comprehensive test suite for that code. However they can't tell you if it doesn't work because of some interaction with something else you didn't think about. They can't tell you that all race conditions are really fixed (despite being somewhat good at tracking them down when known). They can't tell you that the program doesn't work because it doesn't do something critical that nobody thought to write into the requirements until you noticed it was missing.
> once you get bored of mindless work/consumption cycle, go ahead and get to the good part!
The good part is spawning another entity which has to slog through mindless work and consumption cycle, (experience the misery of aging, wither and die) - just so you can feel good about yourself?
You acknowledge the stats about mental health and loneliness and how prevalent that is, and yet you will roll a dice on (other persons behalf) with glee - with high odds of subjecting your child to it.
Natural selection truly is a sight to behold, where peoples brains get disabled and they lose their ability to think when it comes to procreation, because those that do think get selected out of the gene pool.
On the one hand, I like blunt descriptions like yours - the reasons why loving a romantic partner, sex, and caring for children feels good is because that makes the species (or your genes more specifically) continue to exist.
The optimism that some people seem to have about their children weirds me out, too: They will probably end up being pretty normal people. Probably more or less like their parents.
But all of that being bad depends on whether you think that life is mostly suffering and should rather be avoided. It's not what I think. If you think that life is mostly good, then giving life is a good thing.
The issue is - fundamentally - whether you think life is "mostly good" isn't based on measurement.
Lets say you had a device that could accurately quantify and measure how much pain/suffering and joy/pleasure you experience.
Lets say that number comes out to 70% pain&suffering and 30% joy.
Is life mostly good?
Lets say 70% of people say that the ratio sucks, and 30% of people says it is a good thing.
After a couple of generations, the only people that exist are mainly the ones that think 70 units of pain vs 30 units of joy is "good life" and continue procreating producing offspring that are selected for the same qualitites.
Lets say environment changes, and life is 90 units of pain vs 10 units of joy. Given some time, the only people that exist think this life is a "good thing". They still feel pain mind you, but think the trade-off is worth it.
If you don't think the trade-off is worth it, you get selected out of the gene pool.
Now you can take this thought experiment to extremes, 9999 units of pain and 1 unit of joy, etc.
This life would also end up being a "good thing", because natural selection optimizes for procreation and survival, and not for "quality of life", "joy/enjoyement", etc.
70% pain and 30% joy is derived 5 workdays and 2 days of rest, as a starting point.
I'm afraid there isn't any thinking involved in any of this, it's just hard survival instincts selected by natural selection. The people that think that having children now (for whatever reasons) isn't a good idea wont exist anymore, and only people that "think" it is a good idea and end up doing it. This isn't based on objective measurement of pain/pleasure (it's almost irrelevant).
> The good part is spawning another entity which has to slog through mindless work and consumption cycle, (experience the misery of aging, wither and die) - just so you can feel good about yourself?
The future belongs to those who show up. I do wonder what percentage of antinatalism is simply mate/fertility suppression. The rest being "mad at God for the crime of being", of course.
> Only if the mothers in aggregate truly believe that their children will have good lives, then will they have them.
Parents have never truly cared whether or not their children will have "good lives", certainly not in any - "i'll sit down and analyze carefully if my offspring will have a good time" type of way.
Child mortality rate used to be something like 50% in past.
People still have insane fertility rates in complete - objectively shitholes - like Bangladesh, etc.
That's simply not how the world works, that's not how natural selection works.
The problem is that you (and most people frankly) look at the "fertility problem" within their very limited 1-human lifespan. However, if you zoom out a bit, the fertility problem disappears, not only does it disappear completely - the problem will disappear regardless if circumstances get better or if they get way worse.
The mothers (and fathers) that don't have children because they think the "world as it is right now is a bad place", will simply get selected out.
Caring about whether your children will have "a good life" to a point of not having any is simply maladaptive from natural selection POV and it will sort it out very quickly. It's just a 1-gen outlier.
i think those stats show the opposite. They had higher fertility rate when things were worse, but women mostly didnt have a choice. Now they're better but still bad, and women do have a choice - so they are choosing not to, judging by the collapsed birth rate.
Just my experience but I have never found the medical industry useful for health. I have found they mostly tinker with feedback loops to give the illusion of health.
Eating right, exercise, supplementation of the things I am missing from my diet, clean air, avoiding chronic stressful situations and people are the only things I have found to benefit me. But that's just my own anecdotal experience. (n=1)
At minimum medical industry is good for providing various measurements regarding the state of your health and environment. This can get quite pricey quite fast.
Depending on MCU, you can chain DMA transfers together, so you can have many small writes without extra CPU involvement per DMA transfer. DMA channels are a limited resource however.
There's quite a few ways to do this, you can do a DMA transfer per horizontal/vertical screen line (not enough memory for a fullscreen buffer, but usually enough memory for 2 fullscreen lines), with an interrupt which fills in the next line to be transfered, etc.
> displays are rarely more than 8 bit
Backing memory in these color TFT SPI displays is often 18bits per pixel, often transfered as RGB565 (2bytes) per pixel.
For SSD1306 its 1bit per pixel, and even the weakest MCUs usually have enough memory for a second buffer.
All this is completely ass-backwards thinking though.
The crucial question is - does the end-user/customer want to see smooth lines or prefers "hacker-man" TUI aesthetics.
I'd say you generally speaking users want normal smooth lines graph instead of hackerman aesthetics.
So preferring implementation simplicity (TUI) might be another case where substandard programmers prioritize their convenience over the end-user needs/preferences.
The same isn't true for modern embedded devices, they don't have tile rendering hardware.
If you connect a i2c/SPI screen (SSD1306, ST7735), you write all the pixels on the screen (or pixels to some subregion of the screen), these screens do have a backing memory in them.
So in order to draw a line, you will - objectively - have to copy/move more bytes if you approximate line with character symbols.
This isn't a big deal, but crazy efficient it is not.
All the efficiency when drawing on those screens mostly relies on how well you chain together DMA transfers to portions of the screen you want stuff to be drawn to, so that SPI transfers aren't blocking the CPU (that's assuming you don't have memory for a second full-screen buffer).
SSD1306 is a bit in the middle. It's technically a 128x64 monochrome bitmapped display, but it's organized as eight 128x8 "rows", with each byte representing a single 1x8 group of pixels. That organization really favors being treated as either four or eight lines of text - trying to use it as a generic bitmap display gets awkward, because it's only addressable at the level of those 1x8 groups.
ST7735 is more of a standard (color) bitmap display.
SSD1306 is just 1KByte for a second buffer, so even a rather low-end MCU likely can spare that. And you'd absolutely just draw normal lines if you use a display like that.
It's very easy to use it as a generic bitmap display, there's nothing awkward about packing 8pixels into 1 byte, and you can set the addressing mode (horizontal/vertial) to whatever you want, etc.
.jpg){kind=link}
It emphasizes neither!
What you've described is a mass grave.
Quite literally so. If you killed all living humans (8.3billion), the mass-grave you'd have to dig to put them all in one place isn't quite large indeed!
Plus, humans on earth are affected by gravity, so any arrangement of them cubic squares instead of square miles is highly unintuitive, unusual and unnatural to begin with.
This doesn't say anything about habitable or fertile farmable area (measured in km^2, not in km^3) of the planet, or the number of people (that you've conveniently reduced by taking a square root of - twice! by packing them into a tightly packed cube)
For example, if you took 8 billion people and made them hold hands with each other tightly packed (0.5m per person) it would wrap the circumference of earth 100 times.
Now this actually says something about size of the earth!
If you divy up the land surface of earth by population, you get a rather small parcel of land, something to tune of 140m x 140m (this includes deserts and other mostly uninhabitable lands!)
Arable land would be a much smaller parcel of land still!
If you measure human land use in terms of arable land and living space per person, instead of mass-grave metrics the planet Earth is pretty much squarely over-populated and is very much stretching of what is sustainable.
reply