Before that, a more important question is: why assume that buying or having "more stuff" leads to a better life?

Human life requires some consumables. Even with less stuff, you will always need some stuff.

That 'some' is actually very little compared to rich countries' GDP per capita. You could argue that a lot is wasted acquiring useless stuff.

We need very few non perishables aside from the roof on your head.

Even a roof on your head is perishable over time.

Also true but that's not something I can easily show with economics.

Do we assume that?

I love it how the rampocalypse is pushing people to squash all the performance they can. I hope that this also leads to rethinking model architecture so that they can do the same with less.

This looks like a great idea, thanks for sharing it!

All videos are so full of stereotypes and clichés, often borderline (or just plainly) racist. But of course, that's not the main worry for people making these things, right...

Does the original video fare any better? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OPf0YbXqDm0

So much money spent to avoid the easiest answer: less cars (more public transport, more bicycle lanes, etc.)

So while we're trying to make computers do what humans do, we play pretend being computers.

Of course the solution to overusing AI is... to use more AI. Love it.

> This is generally driven by people’s desire for a new device, including for the functionalities provided by new models.

So people are to blame, not the companies shoveling ads, offering promotions to buy new phones, and in general creating the huge demand that they later, "are forced to satisfy".

I'm skeptical about efforts to discuss changing schools (not even "revolutionizing" them) without even mentioning Ivan Illich or Paulo Freire.

Here some links for the lazy ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschooling_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed

The article is great and very informative. But I feel there's a general vibe of "privatizations are great". For example, they do mention that privatizations didn't work in Argentina (they were a total mess and the total railway went from something like 50k kilometers to two thirds of that - if) but they don't mention enough of it - or other cases - to understand which regulations and why worked the way they did. It feels too much like it's all about integrating corporations, and that's it.

S.Y. Lee wrote an excellent series on the privatization of Japan National Railways (JNR). This is part 4 of 4: https://www.substack-bahn.net/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-japans-...

If I remember correctly, the privatization of JNR was mostly political, and has little relation to the subsequent successes or failures of the railways. In other words, keeping it public would not necessarily have changed the outcome for passengers.

I'm not surprised that the article has that vibe and that you noticed it. Works in Progress, the magazine that published the article, is notorious for having a preference for market-oriented solutions, "laissez faire" policies and neoliberalism. They are open about it. Nothing wrong with that, of course.