>elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public
No, they're not. The internet has allowed everyone to be effectively isolated and siloed, and fed pre-approved messages, all while fooling everyone into thinking they are more "connected".
I don't think politicians are bothered about being "heckled" online. I suspect they are fully aware that, as long as they stay out of it, it's us mugs who spend our time "communicating" online, while they set the real-life rules that we all follow.
I used to strongly support the principles of free, uncensored, and anonymous online speech, but it never seems to actually provide any benefits. I now strongly believe that in-person social skills and networks are much more useful, when it comes to getting things done.
Interesting. Obviously anything after 2G cannot really be a "dumb phone", but they have made a good effort at hiding the usual functionality of a smart phone. I'm going to stick to my Nokia 105 for as long as 2G is kept alive where I am...
Disappointed. When I read "powering an office", I thought they had found a way to run their business-critical applications and storage on Pis. Now that would be an achievement.
Very curious about the circumstances surrounding this move, especially as the EFF is one of the few organisations taking a principled stance on the state of the internet.
There is certainly a lot of doublespeak - the EFF's own news page is titled "John Gilmore Leaves the EFF Board, Becomes Board Member Emeritus", but the body of the text confirms that "the EFF Board of Directors has recently made the difficult decision to vote to remove Gilmore from the Board.".
Before you use your laptop or phone, write down exactly what it is that you want to achieve. Then, time how long it takes, and recall exactly what it was you did end up doing.
As you say, the results are surprising. I have worked very hard to remove tech from my personal and social life as much as possible.
Edit: youtube is the worst for this. I know perfectly well that 99% of youtube videos could be summarised in a few sentences, yet still find myself watching endless rubbish.
That would be the most optimistic estimate I've ever seen - do you have a source for it?
Assuming 73kg/CO2e per kWh of EV pack[1], an 85kWh EV pack, an ICE that gets 40mpg (and thus 40 miles per 11kg CO2), grid production of 0.30kg CO2e / kWh (which is far lower than the US grid output), and 3 miles per kWh for the EV, the breakeven point is at 35,000 miles.
I thought drastic measures were needed to slash CO2 emissions, to stave off the Climate Catastrophe? Most analysis puts the lifecycle CO2 savings of an EV over an ICE at somewhere near 50%. Hardly seems worth it, with all of the extra pollution created by new mining and disposal cycles.
Seems it would be much better advice to walk or cycle more, instead of lining the pockets of big mining (which is working well for me - my wife's company is making money faster than they can count it. She likes to tell people she works in "Renewables".).
I don't understand why this is surprising. The embodied energy of lithium cells is enormous, and it takes 30,000 miles or more of EV driving before you've paid back the CO2 debt of manufacturing the battery pack (that is, assuming you're driving an EV largely manufactured using fossil fuels, which they are, and you are driving somewhere with a reasonably high percentage of renewable electricity sources in the grid).
More fun calculations include "how many solar panels would we need to power one Gigafactory" and "how many wind turbines would we need to manufacture that many solar panels".