Ah, I see, I definitely agree with everything you’re saying; I just got a bit confused. When you talked about “green option”, I was thinking something like fast fashion vs clothes that will last, for example.

I’m not completely sure of what point you’re making. Would you buy the cheaper product even if you could afford the more expensive green one?

Because if the answer is “no”, then you are still agreeing with OP; and if the answer is “yes” then you are saying you want to knowingly buy something that is harmful for the environment and encourage a company to make more of it, while deflecting responsibly and saying that corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something.

I would like to add David Graeber to that, and Kropotkin even. I don’t mean to start a snowball effect that turns this into a huge list, but I feel like not enough people (especially the average person) know about them; especially Graeber who is a lot more modern.

They very clearly were wrong for painting technology as the problem. The problem is and was capitalism.

Yeah, the post is only true if we start implementing a bunch of copyright laws for the training and use of AI; ironically that is something most anti-AI people support.

It does bring up the topic of climate change several times, and yet’s still more than the protest that do happen, but you never hear about because they don’t inconvenience anyone. There have been plenty of instances of protests vandalizing rich people’s yachts, for example, but that doesn’t make the headlines and people don’t care, so no attention is raised and it’s ultimately meaningless.

I think it’s just part of how languages work and people communicate, at least for people learning a second language - but I even do it in my native tongue, so I think it’s general.

For example, if when you are learning English you hear a lot of people say “God dammit” when they are frustrated, then when you are frustrated you’ll probably also start saying the same without ever even thinking about God. It’s essentially just a series of sounds when you learned to make to express frustration.

I think this is it.

The historians I know of actually seem to lean quite left of the average person; it’s the light hobbieists, who are often more interested in the aesthetics/surface stuff, who seem to fall victim to the alt-right stuff.

The scale on the left doesn’t start at zero, so the difference is smaller than the size of the bars make it seem. The difference between #1 Slackware, and last spot Arch, is 0.75 points in a 0 to 10 scale, but the bar size of Slackware is about 2.5x bigger than the bar for the Arch users.

I can’t vouch for every Linux distro that claims to be user-friendly, but I’ve fully switched to Linux Mint a couple of months ago, and I’ve had no issues. The only times I’ve used the console are when I want to use it.

My biggest worry before fully switching was playing pirated games, or games that I bought outside of Steam, but using Lutris it has been pretty straight forward.

I’ve only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can’t help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as “you can’t eat your cake and have it too”.

One problem no one has mentioned, is that it also makes life a lot harder for homeless people. I guess they need to open a bank account and start writing their account number on a cardboard.

This actually reminds me of when I went to a restaurant a while ago. I had some physical money to spend, so I figured I’d take it with me and pay with that. At the end of the meal, while my friends paid with a card, I asked if I could pay with cash. Immediately, the waiter’s demeanor changed and he looked almost… disgusted? I don’t even know. Then he asked me in a tone that matched his expression if I didn’t have a card, and I answered something like “Well, I do, but it would be more convenient for me to pay with cash, if that’s okay”. Then he, for some reason, repeated the question, and I answered similarly. He didn’t say anything and just avoided looking at me. While a friend next to me was paying I asked again, “so, can I pay with cash?”, and without looking at me, he just barely shook his head yes. So I paid with cash, and then I awaited my 3€ change back (in my country it’s not usually custom to tip because waiters actually get paid full salaries). Eventually he came back with our receipt, but no change. I just left without saying anything - at this point I wasn’t going to argue about 3€ - but I’m most definitely not coming back to that place.

Still don’t know what the dude’s problem was, but it did leave me wondering how are homeless people expected to pay for anything, if even a person who isn’t homeless can receive such cold treatment just for choosing to pay with cash.

I don’t know much about her, but directly from the wiki:

The rate at which Harris’s office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[76] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[76]

It sounds like her position on weed is not exactly what people are painting it as. At least these comments make it seem much worse than it is according to the wiki.

EDIT:

According to this, she even supported a bill in 2019 to legalize marijuana at a federal level, tax it, and use that money to (according to this):

Create a community reinvestment fund to reinvest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow those funds to be invested in the following programs:

Job training;

Reentry services;

Expenses related to the expungement of convictions;

Public libraries;

Community centers;

Programs and opportunities dedicated to youth; and

Health education

I don’t know if it’s on purpose, but you are definitely spreading misinformation.

If you explore the dynamics of people migrating en masse and severe drought causing crop failures and small countries mismanaging famines

That’s kinda the premise of interstellar, but people sort of ignore it and just focus on the space part. My cynical guess is that a movie such as you describe would have audiences mostly focus and care about the war aspect, while ignoring the setup and premise.

It was also criticized for being “too on the nose”, which is exactly the type of behavior that the movie was criticizing. Basically the world is ending and when someone tries to raise awareness people don’t react, so they get louder and lose patience because the world is fucking ending, and then get told not to be alarmist and to stop freaking out. It’s the plot of the movie, and it’s what happened to the movie.

For my comment specifically I’m not worried about the economy, but the unit cost of energy. Simply put if nuclear has a higher unit cost that means we can’t replace as much fossil fuel generation vs other lower unit cost sources of energy for the same price.

I’ll put it another way so you might better understand my point: what would you have said 10 or 15 years ago when someone mentions that solar is a bad idea because it would cost more? Because up until recently it did cost more, and people did use it as an argument against it. And now your (and other people’s) main criticism of nuclear is that it’s not as cheap as an energy source that we’ve been heavily investing into for a decade.

You have, however, picked a very specific and unlikely event here

I showed several examples. The ones you mentioned, such as earthquakes, are not likely to affect one source more than another, but events which block out the sun obviously disproportionately affect the production of solar energy.

it’s no longer the cheapest or fastest way to achieve that

Neither was solar when we started to invest in it, as I mentioned earlier. That came from improving and investing in the technology - which also bumped solar into the safest energy source, right after nuclear, which used to be the safest.

You don’t need sunlight to grow crops, you just need energy; which in this scenario would require an energy source that is not the sun.

And you’ve said absolutely nothing of substance while misconstructing what I’m saying and engaging in the type anti-science behavior that were it to come from climate deniers this community would rip on.

Firstly, the “planet killer” example, was just an extreme example to demonstrate how an unexpected climate event can render solar panels completely useless. Another example I gave you was ashes from volcanic eruptions. This is simple deflection and bad faith argumentation. Secondly, let’s continue on “planet killer event” anyway:

and if it happened now

And if it happened in 20, 50, or 100 years? Is your argument “I think if it happens now we’re fucked, so it’s pointless to prepare for the eventuality of it”?

the dust cloud would essentially kill our civilisation as we know it. a small percentage of people would survive, and it wouldn’t matter if they had nuclear power or not, there are other power sources other than solar

How would it kill civilization as we know it? Define “civilization”, and tell me what it would look like in that scenario, and why it’s not worth to try to minimize its destruction. And what leads you to believe only a small percent of the population would survive? And are they not worth preserving? Because even a small percentage can’t eat or breathe dust, and as I said, with enough power you can grow food, have clean water, and make breathable air. And what other power sources are you referring to? Nuclear is the second safest energy source after solar by a distant margin, and except for maybe wind and solar, it’s also the most environmentally friendly - which is important given these power sources would have to be setup in advance of the events in question, which could take hundreds or thousands of years to happen.

I’m tired of arguing this, especially with someone who doesn’t seem interested in arguing in good faith and is quite stubborn in remaining unscientific, so I’ll be leaving it at this.

then I think we have bigger problems

Care to point them out? As I’ve said, and expect to be common knowledge on a (I would expect) scientifically leaning community, the dinosaurs weren’t killed by the meteor, their death was caused by the blacking out of the sun. You have access to energy, you can make air filters, grow food, purify water. If you don’t have energy, then you die.

Regardless, this is a deflection from the main point, that was merely an extreme example, even volcanic eruptions could cause huge disruptions if you depend too much on solar power.

sight

The meteor didn’t kill the dinosaurs, it was the dust cloud that did so by blacking out the sun. If you have sources of energy that are not reliant on the sun, it is very much possible to survive it. You can use artificial light to make grow food, and you can even make air processors if plants start dying. But you can’t do that if you have no power.