ChoViva ist doch überhaupt kein Produkt von Nestlé, das ist von einem eigenständigen deutschen Startup.

I’m preparing to start a company, and as a single person who needs to quit a job to do this, having to wait for three-ish months starting when I start filing before I can actually do business is extremely annoying. It doesn’t have to be 2 days and 100% online as far as I’m concerned, but several months at full operating expenses just waiting until the last registration is finally confirmed is just not how we get more startups to start in Europe.

Der Hersteller von ChoViva hat da etwas “Glück” gehabt weil Kakao ja nicht immer so teuer war, sondern es in den letzten Jahren einfach massive Ernteausfälle gab. Aber das macht das mit dem CO2 nicht falsch, wenn die Alternative lokal produziert werden kann und nicht wie Kakao einmal um die Welt geflogen werden muss und zum Anbau auch kein Regenwald gerodet werden muss.

ChoViva ist ja nicht von Nestlé, ich hab das schon oft bei allem von billigen Supermarkt-Eigenmarken bis zu veganen bio-Produkten gesehen. Kann man also leicht probieren, vielleicht sogar anstatt einem Produkt von Nestlé.

But you can already have a megacorporation on the EU level, the Societas Europaea (SE). Like Airbus.

This new thing sounds more like they want to make it easier for everybody else.

Yes and no… you’re basically saying that with support from China and Russia, they got to a point where they can build WW2 tech invented more than 80 years ago using pen and paper. There’s definitely newer tech that they can’t build (e.g. computers are imported).

Im Prinzip ja aber die haben tatsächlich auch Müllerdrink auf Haferbasis und so. Ist natürlich einfach zu vermeiden weil der Name schon direkt mit Müll anfängt.

notice that there’s no Lithium Polymer column…

There is no Lithium Polymer column because the page you linked explicitly only compares Lithium Ion batteries…

Dynamic swap and zswap aren’t really the same as efficient ram usage it’s just good ways to mitigate when you run out.

I disagree. If the OS automatically identifies unneeded pages and compresses them or swaps them out, it’s certainly using the physical memory more efficiently than if it wasn’t doing these things.

avoiding multiple versions of the same library is what distros exist for

But they can’t if the applications they want to ship don’t all use the same version. E.g. Ubuntu ships GTK 2, 3, and 4. Arch even still ships GTK 1 in addition to these three.

avoiding loading different frameworks is what Desktop Environments are for

What happens is you run KDE but then you still want to run Firefox so you still need GTK.

There are some advantages macOS can have but it depends on usage patterns and user knowledge:

• You don’t have to configure swap on macOS, while on Linux you can get into a situation where e.g. at install time you set up some default 2 GB swap but then it’s not enough and you don’t know that’s a thing that can be changed.
• You don’t have to configure compression for RAM or swap on macOS; on Linux you often have to know you can set up zram/zswap if you want it. Compression can make a huge difference for users that switch between memory heavy applications as long as they don’t literally switch every 5 seconds.
• On macOS, applications generally use the same frameworks e.g. for UI (because there is not much choice), and they can be loaded once and shared between all of them. Linux can share libraries too but users can run into situations where their applications use multiple different versions of Qt, GTK, etc. at the same time, and then you have stuff like snap on top that comes with its own copies of even basic system libraries. Containers also do this. As a Linux user you can avoid library bloat to some extent but “normal” users are not aware of it in the first place.