This will only erode worldwide encryption if the app-makers do actually include a back-door right? (E.g. scan client side). I expect, at least some, to refuse (Apple comes to mind with their refusal to unlock iPhones in that one terrorist case*), so that would mean that worldwide privacy is still intact?

It may be made impossible (illegal) for the app makers to operate in the UK (how this stops Signal for tech-literate users I am unsure, they can sideload and potentially donate to signal just fine I presume? So, signal at least loses little from refusing). At worst, this would just further alienate the UK from the rest of the world, which is not a good thing, but not necessarily a direct issue for app users outside the UK (caveat, less trustworthy apps will totally comply without outright stating this, so it may be possible that some apps are comprised, but that option exists even without a law requiring backdoors)

*I seem to remember that apple refused/could not unlock aan iphone in US court which belonged to a (supposed) terrorist, but the details escape me. I may be completely wrong here, but I am fairly sure that Apple generally refuses to break encryption/safety on their products

Seconded

duckduckgo'd: 'economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing' results was this:(theconversation(dot)com link), so I guess Richard Thaler is who you're looking for.

Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.

What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of 'quick wins' (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don't just point out one group as 'responsible' to pivot away the blame).

In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.

Emm, what? I'd say rampant photosynthesis by cyanobacteria is not a great way to tackle climate change. Yes, it will draw down CO2, but also produce O2. O2 is way more reactive and toxic than CO2, and generally not something you want to have too much off (unless you want to burn/explode something that is).

Maybe another 'great oxygenation event' is not what we should strife for...?

That is aside from other potential negative consequences of cyanobacterial blooms, which generally kill other life through toxins or by shading deeper water layers (and subsequent oxygen depletion when built up organic matter breaks down, leading to death bottom areas in the sea)

That's not mutually exclusive to datamining though*. Yes they have a product in their stores, but the customers are unwitting products (to another customer-group) themselves (tbf this happens a lot, which does NOT make it ok however)

*not saying this happens, I don't know if the EPIC store datamines, I have never used it as I am on linux so I may as well not exist to EPIC

According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.

Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).

Also you're last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be 'bad' per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)

A quick search tells me there is something called Screenruler in linux, does that work for your usecase?

Haven't used it myself so I can't give any endorsement or critiques, but it seems to be similar to the linked windows tool

Considering that this was written almost 10 years ago, it will only have gotten worse.

We can point this out and complain, but really I fail to see a solution unless there is a systematic change. For that to happen though, those at the top will have to give up on their acquired benefits, so I think it unlikely.

Maybe if grants would be handed out on a 'lottery' basis (grant applications should still be screened to prevent handing out to non-serious applications), this could be achieved?