You can do pretty much the same thing with Firefox: you sign in to Firefox to sync your passwords and browser settings, then (assuming you’re talking about Google calendar, Gmail, etc.) You can sign into your Google account with one click. That’s not really any less convenient.

Besides, I’ve hardly ever heard of anyone moving away from Firefox to Chrome, so I doubt the reason is any sort of convenience or design superiority. I’d attribute it to the fact that most people who already use the Internet (pretty much everyone) has already settled on a browser, with chrome-based browsers being the most common. So anyone new to the Internet will just choose the favorite as the default. This is especially true considering they most new Internet users are probably kids, so they’re not aware of concerns about privacy, monocultures, DRM, etc. that would drive someone to pick Firefox.

Basically, it’s not that Chrome is actually better than Firefox. I think it’s that the market is growing, and the most common browsers will grow more quickly than Firefox simply for the sake of familiarity.

Did you look at the link posted? I’ve never seen a door handle like that, and I’m not even sure I would realize it was a lever if I saw it. It looks like a static part of the door to me.

I do agree that I’d probably end up pulling on it after some searching, but it wouldn’t be the first place I’d go.

Not necessarily the creation of plastic–I agree that it’s very beneficial–but the management of plastic. As we’re seeing now, plastic can be very destructive to life when it’s used and disposed of irresponsibly. The filter in this case is being able to use plastic for its good without letting its harmful aspects get out of control.

Do you think there should be cotton in our hearts too? Just because we wear something doesn’t mean it should be inside our bodies too.

Some instances filter out certain words. It looks like the comment above triggered one of lemmy.world’s filters

I buy a new one every January and lick it down throughout the year

I wasn’t talking about the electoral college at all, more about congressional elections, which are already decided by popular vote within voting districts and states. If we didn’t group voters by location (in this case state) no individual state would have representation in Congress, instead just having Representatives elected by the country as a whole through a proportional representation system. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing, but it would be a major change from what Americans are used to, so I was curious about people’s opinions on it.

How would you do it instead? Do you feel the same about federal elections, in which voters are grouped by state?

I think you’re misunderstanding. I’ve always heard this in the context of a UBI, never that an employer should pay an ex-employee for the work that a robot does.

With this setup, nobody is forced to do menial labor. Those that are willing and able can pursue higher education and pick up more skilled jobs, increasing potential for technological advancement. Those that can’t or don’t want to can pursue their own interests and hopefully create some cultural significance. Essentially, the automation will allow people to leave their shitty jobs and pursue something more fulfilling without worrying about going bankrupt, all while society still has its basic needs met.

I’ve always thought this was an ideal scenario. Whenever I hear people talking about how automation is taking jobs and needs to be stopped, I think about how automation should really be encouraged to allow people to contribute more meaningfully, but this can only be done after we’ve established a UBI and other social programs to ensure that these people can get by without the income they get from their current jobs.