Delzur

Don't worry I get notificatons

I just used the same source out of simplicity, I didn't double check as that wasn't my point. It would indeed be better to have more recent numbers.

Not seeing homeless people doesn't mean they don't exist, seems like Japanese streets are mostly devoid of homeless people, but a lot of people seem to be living in cafes, to avoid ending up in jail as as far as I've understood, the government has a harsh policy towards that. Might be wrong on japan, but again, I'm not trying to point fingers to a country saying they are bad or good, it's the argument itself that I find "weak".

PS: just to be clear, I do feel that first of all, the OP should be the one trying to prove their saying. Nice of you to try and debunk it though

What is "so many"? Compared to whom?

Nice, but not related. See that comment

This link does not disprove the point. Home ownership isn't the same thing, you can have families that rent, they aren't homeless either.

Using the same source there is twice as many homeless (relative to population) in china than in spain, for example.

I'm not trying to prove that the number is high in China, I don't know what's the average for all countries. However, claiming that there isn't a lot of homeless because 90% of the non homeless own their house is wrong.

They absolutely are loud. I avoir them as much as possible even though I don't have ear issues (yet, I gguess)

"To improve financial security"

Fixed it

Sure, then you can start libreoffice calc and go up to around 1g of ram and close to 0% CPU anyway.

My point wasn't on exact numbers because obviously the ones in the image are made up, unless that excel file is a monster of macros, VBA scripts and connections to numerous data lakes.

It's not a belief. Animals being sentient is a fact. Animal agriculture being inefficient and wasteful is a fact. Animal products not being necessary for our survival is a fact.

Now you could argue that killing sentient beings is OK, but then that's a weird moral position. And nevertheless, not a belief

With 16gb of RAM and 102% CPU, the computer shows you a UI on any underlying hardware, any monitor/tv/whatever, handles a moise, keyboard, sound, handles any hardware interruption, probably fetches and sends stuff to the internet, scans your disk to index files so you can search almost instantly through gigabytes of storage whether it's USB sticks, ssds, harddrive, nvme drive. And probably a lot of other stuff I'm forgetting. Meanwhile the other thingy with 4kb ram did college math problems. Impressive for the time yes, but that's it.

Yes, nowadays there is a lot of inefficiency, but that comparison does not, and never did, make sense.