You don't say.

Not just meat industry but to everyone even with a slight cold because doctors feel like they have to "do something" or the patient is unhappy and complains.

More like finding bugs and exploiting the hell out of them.

Yeah, nothing better than go get random npcs running toward me with random ass quests "help help my mom was kidnapped you have 15min to save her or SHE DIES SHE'S RIGHT IN THAT CAVE IN OVER THERE", or to have bandits and assassins jump me four times during a walk to the capitol. Jolly good content.

Interesting material considering that one issue with graphene and carbon nanotubes etc tends to be that small defects in the crystal lattice majorly affect its mechanical properties. And it is very difficult to manufacture things with no defects. This being an amorphous material could mean that it is much more robust to local defects. Though I only skimmed the article.

Very common. Advertisers already know everyone you come in contact with, or ar least those whom you spend time with. They will use that info to push ads to the group, or to the relevant people of that group.

It's Christmas time, you browse moccasins store for 10min, obviously you're interested in them. Why wouldn't advertisers show that item to your gf? That's like the perfect ad for her.

That's not really how they work, or that is not the only way. Their point is to put the logo, slogans, company etc into your memory. This way when you're shopping for something specific, then the brand pops out to you because you've seen it and it gives you a sense of familiarity and hence, higher trust.

The same thing as with tooooooons of things: scale.

Nobody cares if one dude steals office supplies at work. Now, if everyone stats doing it, or if the single guy steals everything, then action is taken.

Nobody cares if a random person draws in the same style and with same characters as you, but if they start to sell them, or god forbid, out-sell you, then there is a problem.

Nobody cares (except police I guess) if a random driver drives double the speed limit and annoys people living next to the road on the weekends, but when tons of people do it, you get speed bumps.

Nobody cares if few people pirate movies, but when it gets to mainstream and companies notice that there might be money being lost. Then you get whatever we have now.

Nobody cares if the mudhill behind your house erodes a bit and you get mud on your shoes. Have a bunch of that erode and you realise the danger...

You have been fine-tuning your own writing style for a decade and random schmuck starts to write similarly, you probably don't care. No harm done. Now, get an AI to write 10 000 books in a weekend and someone starts to sell them... well now you have a completely different problem.

On a fundamental level the exact same thing is happening, yet action is only taken after a certain threshold is step over.

There is quite a lot of extra discussion regarding the 1000-ton rule in the artual report itself (link can ne found in the article). Here are some excerpts:

it is likely more than 300 million (“likely best case”) and less than 3 billion (“likely worst case”) will die as a result of AGW of 2 °C.

A more recent attempt at quantifying future deaths in connection with specific amounts of carbon was published by Bressler [69]. Coining an economically oriented term “mortality cost of carbon”, he claimed that “for every 4434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature”. His predictions were confined to deaths from extreme heat when wet-bulb temperature exceeds skin temperature (35 °C).

Some interesting stuff in there.

I would've added more but holy shit the mdpi.com mobile website is atrocious to copy stuff from. It keeps throwing me at the end of the entire article, highlighting everything.

Lmao this thread is so weird to read. My parents call me all the time to ask how I am. I also call them. And my friend from time to time and he calls me. Samesies for my fiancée. Normal stuff.

Of course! And it definitely does not try to pry all info about the user that it can and definitely the company behind would not use that in any way.

I've always felt like data gathering is kind of like lobbying. It is not directed toward you in person. It is used to shift the way people think and their opinions on topics.

A company / non-profit / movement / whatever lobbying towards a goal might be buying lunches or making seminars and talking about their point with selected group of people who have a say in a topic. Or they might not but they are in the vicinity of the topic or perhaps they are a group that a the company feels like they do not know what the fuck they are talking about and that needs to change.

These are not directed toward you but to a group of people whom you most likely have nothing to do with. This group has power to change something. Whether for good or for bad, that depends who doing the lobbying and for what purpose and how you think about the topic.

Data gathering is similar. This data that is being gathered is not identifiable to you (or it can be but this is not what I am talking about) but it gets clumped together with a buuuuunch of people. This bunch might be people from country x or Christians or people who like Mc Donald's or who are against gun-rights or pro abortion or people whom think that companies should not be pushing climate change responsibility to the consumer. This clump of people are the same bunch that the lobbyists are targeting. But they do not have direct power over a subject, in general. Point being that even if most of the people have no power over a topic, some of them might (they might hold power oma person company deciding whether to do more against climate change). And even if they do not, they will converse about the topic and this will shift the general consensus around a topic.

And this bunch of people can be very accurately targeted. People in their 20-30s, who graduated (or will soon) from a university that are most likely to go work in high-tech companies in or in the government who have people around them (family, friends) that are against gun-rights but still own guns and do hunting? Ezpz. Or perhaps own a car and drive a lot and have relatives far enough that car is a necessity but have shifted their thinking being more against cars? Np.

The problem is that this does not easily be used against you in particular. But it can be used against a group of people that you are a part of. It is used to shift the way we think as a community. It is used to push ads and news articles (or just the topics of articles because glancing it also works) to you, comments in twitter, posts in Facebook, and change the search results that you might see. Kind of like ads as well; ads work really well even though lots (most?) people would say that ads don't make them buy a product and only annoy them. Advertisers aren't dumb, they know exactly what people think and how they function, and ads work.

And again to reiterate, it has nothing to do with you. You are a blip. But you are a part of a larger community and in order to shift that community toward something all of its little bits and pieces need to be moved toward that target. Not all of them need to move toward that target. Just enough.

This got a bit rambly I think but anyhooo it's kinda how I see it.