cfhhgtyg

Well, if you grow by outsourcing and don't include the rising emissions of countries outsourced to, you are deluding yourself

> You imply that it won't.

How? Though, I am certain that it won't grow indefinitely on earth.

> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion

It can stop at 9 billion and still not grow indefinitely. Currently a peak of 11 billion and no more than 12 billion is estimated. As said. Because of increased living standards.

> To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.

It better to decrease proportionally with a coefficient smaller than 1 and bigger than 0 than decrease consumption not at all.

> Not a real counter-argument.

Yes, it is, because it implies a logical fallacy.

Degrowth doesn't imply that.

You imply that population will increase indefinitely (max peak expected at 12 billion actually) or that degrowth needs to happen forever.

Further you imply population development increases if degrowth is applies.

Also, slippery slope argument.

Cycle instead of public transport/car

Not it doesnt't, unless the Protocol itself is responsible for the UX.

In groups you do the same: send a photo message to every group member

Matrix is a protocol, not an App

I am really desperate for an alternative.

No, see. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33355126

I don't think that's true, even though it may seem like that, since poor people can't consume as much climate friendly marketed tech.

Study for attitude to climate policies and more for countries all around the world, rich and less rich: https://www.oecd.org/climate-change/international-attitudes-...

Seems like someone doesn't like the truth

Nobody knows that except amazon and signal.

Would be interesting to know if Amazon could reconstruct that information without Signals knowledge

No investigation necessary.

The information can be obtained in an automated way.

They can.

Even on a theoretical level their sealed sender technique doesn't work: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/improving-signals-...

Now, include lower level technical Details such as the IP layer.

1. Imagine you connect to a server to send a message. Now, you send a message to someone else. The server can't see who you are, right? Because the letter misses your name. Imagine someone else sends a message to you.

2. Imagine you to connect to the same server to receive messages that the server stored for delivery with your name on it. The server gives you the messages.

Do you notice something?

Which reputation? The reputation of a company that doesn't care about privacy at all and we t through dozens of privacy scandals?

Signal certeinly can store it, because they have access to it.

They have access to that data alone through the fact that they are in control of their servers and, thus, can see who sends and receives messages.

If you don't store that data or delete it, you can't provide it.

But Signal could store that data because they have access to that dats

Signal is hosted on Amazon

So does Signal: who when with whom

Matrix does leak more meta data though, e.g. message relationships for instance, but what does that matter?

What does it matter to additionally leak relationships between nessages, such as deletes or replies?

Most important is who when with who which both leak to the server operators