![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Communication is a two way street. It’s both about the message the sender is trying to convey, but also the way the receiver interprets it. As a (mostly) neurotypical thinker, this is even hard for many of us to get right.
An example for clarity is the response your getting in the comments to your friends comments. Various people are disagreeing and agreeing to different levels. Conversation is navigating the complicated dynamics to as the sender, sending your message in a way the receiver will get the impression you are trying to give, and as a receiver, trying to understand the intent of the message the sender is trying to show.
There aren’t many hard or fast rules. In different online communities, different styles and patterns can conotate different things. There are patterns and styles I use here on Lemmy for example, I would never use in a sports online community because they would be interpreted differently there.
My advice is don’t beat yourself up about it. If you’re not getting the type of interactions you’re expecting in a particular community, that might be the time to ask for feedback or see if your communication style is different than the local group there. But the ephemeral nature of these online conversations make it the perfect place to experiment and find a communication style that works for you and gets the response from others you are looking for.
Well more from being in the air than just the scanner I believe!
Your first comment made it sound like they are hitting you on purpose. This comment makes it sound more like the infrastructure is not conductive to cycling and therefore it’s dangerous to cycle in your area. I grew up in northeast Cincinnati and am an avid cyclist, and the second comment lines up with my experience while the first, that reads as if people are actively trying to hit you, doesn’t line up with my experience. I think that is why you are getting down voted.
It depends on what you feel about the future of technology. Most productivity growth comes from advances in technology. We haven’t hit a maximum yet, so it’s a question of if you think technology will or won’t enable us to do more in the same amount of time for the indefinite future.
Constant productivity growth could allow it without constant population growth, as long as products growth exceeds impacts from population decline. This report is basically saying they don’t see that happening.
Even if the cost was an impossibly low 10% of MSRP, that’s still $30 trillion dollars based on the math above and well more than he has.
This isn’t unusual for Enterprise grade IT hardware. Mainframes have been sold/licensed that way for decades. I recently dealt with a performance issue that we solved by buying a license to use more of a piece of hardware that was already in our data center (we didn’t realize the piece we owned had twice the capacity that could be unlocked just through licensing till we engaged the vendor)