Yes, except this is of all lemmy users, not just slrpnk.net, which is just one of the instances measured.

Yes, but I find it interesting to see that despite having a theme, slrpnk.net is as spread as generic instances and less clustered as, e.g. programming instances, lgbt, anime or nsfw ones.

I also find it interesting to see which communities bridge users from several instances: /c/ubuntu is the link between the french-speaking world and programming? /c/dragonball is the most mainstream anime community. I also find it interesting that the tankies communities, despite a few bridges, look extremely isolated.

That’s really interesting! It shows which communities share users. I am part of jlai.lu, a french-speaking community that is relatively isolated by also slrpnk.net that seems very spread out!

Would it make sense to compute the standard deviation of each instance’s communities? It would give an idea of which are islands and which are more extended. Not sure if it makes sense to compute it more on 2 dimensions or on the original 21934 though.

Sorry I don’t have it handy, just read it, probably on /r/askscience a while ago. A quick search indicate that maybe this is not as true as I thought. That seems to be the case mostly for coal and for some forms of oil, but not all of it.

Not really IIRC. Modern bacteria are more efficient at breaking down organic materials and forests buried today won’t make oil anymore.

It is renewable in the sense that given infinite time, you can use it to grow infinite energy (for the nitpickers: assuming an eternal sun).

It is not infinite though and the amount of power you can extract from it is limited but that’s true for every renewable sources: you have a limited amount of places where you can put dams, where you can put windmills or even solar panels.

What is important is that it is not power generation that consumes a scarce good (as fossil power does) but that it is increases in power generation that consumes it, in a reversible way.

At one point hopefully it gets banned.

deleted by creator

Not competent enough to give you advice, but if you are in western Europe, I can recommend you to come to Laval (France) in december, for the next gathering of intermediate vehicles.

I went last year and met hundreds of competent enthusiasts there and learned a lot: https://slrpnk.net/post/3845835

ITER does not aim at being a power plant. Its heat is directed at cooling towers with no turbines. The first fusion power plant is supposed to be DEMO which is supposed to start producing electricity by 2050.

We need both.

There is more to life than basic services, but these should definitely be provided for in a non-profit way.

Pirated many things when I was student. When I started earning a living I realized that the amount they ask for is really not excessive so started paying for several media, but they keep insisting on making sure that what you pay has less usage value than what you pirate. Stopped buying CD when one was designed to not play on my computer. Stopped paying for movies since they decide to tell you where and when you are supposed to watch them.

I gladly pay for books (which half of the time I then pirate to read on my eReader) and video games but the other digital media are trying to establish a toxic relationship and I’ll have none of it.

I really think there is a strong potential in these things. Don’t get fooled by the simplification of seeing opinions in a 2D graph. It helps to explain, but the reality of what these things can (potentially, not sure about this particular implementation) do is to really find across the thousands of dimensions of the debate space, statements that may help you bridge groups.

Imagine person A, strong humanist, no-border, intransigent on human rights. Imagine person B, authoritarian, xenophobic and traditionalist. They are unlikely to agree on statements like “ethnicity X are subhumans” (strong reject by A) and even a middle ground in the form “citizen of ethnicity X should have slightly less rights” is going to be (understandably) rejected by A. The idea is not to find a middle ground on strong disagreements but to find nuggets of agreements in their views from which conversations can started. Statements like “Police should obey the law of the country” is maybe not going to be enthusiastically endorsed by A and B but is a possible ground for agreement.

One of the most positive effect is that both groups can be genuinely surprised by some of the other group opinions. B may not realize that A actually agrees on some anti-smuggling measures and A may not realize that B actually strongly approves of preserving native American rights. Reasons may diverge, implementations diverge, but fishing for agreements is a precious tool in order to mend societies.

This comes from g0v, a very cool (and IMO pretty solarpunk) group. It started as a militant group doing “shadow version” of government agencies in Taiwan, making them better and less “political”. They made a ton of interesting things, one of the core founder is an interesting character

Here is the source: https://github.com/pluralitybook/plurality

Can we encircle the earth in a love heart?

Does it mean that production reached the level where intermittence becomes problematic?

I know. But we know it is “just” an engineering problem which can be solved at a high cost.

Fusion is a field where you can’t have the “statup mindset”: investments are in hundreds of millions and take at best a decade (and most likely two) to pay off. That’s one field where it can’t go anywhere without public funding.

It is very possible that China gets there first, considering how ridiculous western fusion efforts have been.

Your assumptions are far more numerous and offensive than that. From you thinking that I know nothing about discrimination at work or my driving habits, or even assuming that you are more to the left than I am or that I criticize your positions for being leftist rather than being wrong.

The cherry on the top of you laying down a dozen of wrong accusation is you calling my attitude patronizing and belittling.

it unusual for someone to get things this wrong this consistently.

At least we agree on something.

And once again your assumptions about my situation and my work ethics are hilariously wrong. I am cutting down my income in order to work non-profit on issues I do care about and turn down offers by unethical companies routinely. I am a freelance who changes client pretty often. My income does not depend on the acceptance of an ideology, I made sure of that and that was a reason for becoming independent.

I am sure I am not the first person you are antagonizing through your own projections. You should really be more careful about assuming things about the people who contradict you. Sometimes they just do it because you are wrong. Being more open to that possibility would make your life much better.