The further into the future you try to predict, the less reliable the model.

I disagree.

Unscientific take on climate change, IMO

What I've read from scientists/experts doesn't paint that picture at all.

Catastrophic weather events will kill millions, but not a billion.

Is this it? https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/

There was four years of Trump and nothing particularly bad happened.

In fact, global instability has been markedly worse in the four years since.

which president's administration directly attacked Europe with the Nord Stream II bombing?

middle

Trying to learn from 'youtubers' seems like asking for trouble.

Lectures posted on youtube etc. are different I suppose.

for what kind of topics?

sci-hub and annas-archive

I want to be less reliant on Wikipedia and Google Scholar, but in truth I still use them a lot

I don't think the issues you raise are valid.

It costs more than zero to levy a fine, but we are talking about many billions in income here. Your point would be valid if gathering staff and then fining Google 9 billion were a net zero. It isn't.

We are likely better off having that money reinvested in preventing other companies from these practices.

Which is what I suggested. The best way to prevent these practices is libre alternatives.

Take some of that money you get fining surveillance-capitalists and use it to fund privacy-respecting libre alternatives

• Fined Facebook €1.2 billion in May 2023

• Fined Facebook €390 million in Jan 2023

• Fined Microsoft €561 million in March 2013

• "fined the company [Google] more than $9 billion for anticompetitive practices since 2017" (2019 article)

purple