[–] 3 points 4 days ago

You can change a ton. Especially in an urban sprawl environment.

Urban sprawl means it's comparatively easy for people to get PV, heat pumps for heating/cooling and EV chargers at home.

With that, you make yourself completely independent of high gas prices.

Yes, it has high up-front costs, but the long-term benefits are massive. And with enough pain comes political momentum, which can be used to get state subsidies for that kind of stuff and that way you and your country can become independent of importing fossil fuels while at the same time reducing harm to the climate.

And yes, it needs to hurt quite bad first to cause such a big systematic change.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    Poor people are a tiny fraction compared to billionaires per capita.

    But not in total. There are much more poor people than billionaires, and even if each billionaire produces 50 000x the emmisions that a poor person does, all in all the emmissions of poor people are quite relevant too.

    (From an equality standpoint obviously billionaires should be emmission-capped or taxed to the point that they aren't billionaires anymore, there's no question about that. But poor people's emmissions are still significant and more than relevant to the climate.)

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    Gas use is pretty elastic, even in Indiana.

    If gas is expensive, people tend to buy more fuel-efficient cars (or even electric cars). They drive slower and more fuel efficient. They consider whether a trip is actually worth it and bundle trips. So e.g. instead of driving to the shop for a handful items every day they instead do a weekly shopping trip where they get everything they need for the week.

    Just with changing your driving style you can often save a ton of fuel.

    The increased prices also mean that shopping in general goes down. If you don't have money for unnecessary garbage you buy less unnecessary garbage, thus again helping the economy.

    So yes, even in Indiana where you have to drive to your job, higher fuel prices will lead to benefits for the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Hey, that's totally fine. Nobody forces you to do anything. Run whatever you want on your PC. But don't try to control what kind of software someone else is allowed to run on their system.

    You don't want corpos to control what you can do, that's ok.

    But you don't get to control what others can do either.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 49 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I don't play EAC games, so I don't really have a stake in this.

    There are plenty of reasons to run Linux apart from "I want complete and utter freedom" or something like that.

    I would gently remind you that we have been giving kernel-level access to e.g. Nvidia for decades too.

    It's a trade-off, and there are still plenty of actual day-to-day practical benefits of running Linux beyond philosophy.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Ok, I can prove that at least one right-wing extremist drinks water. Thus everyone drinking water is a right-wing extremist.

    It's the same level of logic.

    At this point we aren't even talking about fallacies, but rather about the utter absence of any kind of logic reasoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    The problem as that these directives and standards are completely beside the point. They do manage a lot of security-relevant stuff, but in the end what's hacked isn't the documentation the standards require but the actual code running on the machine.

    And there's pretty little that the standard can do against actual honest bugs and mistakes in the code.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I think OP is confusing fruit flies with mayflies, some of which really only live for a single day as flies. Some of them even live only for a few minutes as flies. E.g. Oligoneuriella rhenana only lives for about 40 minutes in their adult form.

    But they live much longer, some of them up to 4 years, in their non-adult forms.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    This is not meant as an attack in any way, anyone can obvously buy whatever makes them happy.

    I'm just really curious who buys consoles that aren't that old for such high prices.

    I can see the appeal of holding childhood consoles in your hands again, and I can also see the appeal in collecting cool really old stuff. But I struggle to understand why someone would buy e.g. a New 2DS XL for €300 or more.

    So just out of curiosity, if you are someone like that, what's the appeal that makes it worth spending so much money, instead of e.g. just going with a steam deck and an emulator instead?

    Edit to avoid confusion: I am not talking about new reproduction systems (like the N64 Mini) or premium emulation/FPGA systems (like the Analogue Pocket or the MISTer), but about original game consoles that aren't supported any more but also aren't really old. Something like the DS/3DS, PSP, Wii U, Playstation 3. Some of them are now more expensive in mediocre second-hand condition than they were when they were new.

     

    Hear me out:

    The only, absolutely only reason why people don't generally marry on the first date is to figure out whether they DON'T fit together.

    So if you manage to figure out that the relationship is not going to work out before you get into real commitments (kids, mortgage, ...) you successfully avoided trouble.

    I see it so often that people think that dating is already a strong commitment and that ending a dead-end relationship is a failure.

    There is no shame in realizing the relationship is going nowhere and ending it.

     

    First, so I'm not misunderstood: Science does of course exist and it is not religion. But:

    • Not all published science is, in fact, science. The Replication Crisis is a real problem, meaning that a significant portion of published science is actually incorrect.
    • Only a very tiny portion of the population reads scientific papers and has the ability to understand them. That includes scientists and other well-educated people who don't have any expertise on the specific field. Being a renown physicist doesn't mean you know anything about psychology.
    • Scientific papers are filtered through science journalists who might or might not have any expertise in the field and might or might not understand the papers they write about. They then publish what they understood in a more accessible format (e.g. popular science magazines).
    • This is then read by minimum wage journalists with no understanding of any of the science, and they publish their misunderstandings in newspapers and other non-scientific publications.
    • This is then read by the general public who usually lack the skills and/or the resources to fact-check anything at all.
    • These members of the general public then take what they understood as fact and base their world view on it. At this point it hardly matters whether their source of incorrect information is the stack of Chinese whispers I wrote about above, or if it's just straight-up made up by some religious leader.

    There's thousands of little (or big) misunderstandings in non-science that people believe and have faith in, that forms people's world views and even their political views. And people often defend their misconceptions, like they would defend some religious views.

    (Again, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood: I am no exception to this either. I got my field where I have a lot of knowledge, but for most fields I blindly trust some experts, because I have no way to verify stuff. I, too, for example, put my faith in doctors to heal my illnesses, even though I have no way to verify whether anything they say is true or not.)

     

    Recently I had quite a few softporn images popping up on lemmy.world, e.g. from boobs@lemmy.world or porngifs@lemmy.world.

    Was there a rule change that I missed that allows that kind of content now?

    The content on that community is also not marked as NSFW, which makes for awkward moments when scrolling lemmy.world on the bus or in the break at work.

     

    Well, not exactly modern social media, but very similar mechanics. His dad wrote a book with him as a main character, and he got bullied for it and ended up resenting his parents and hating Winnie the Pooh.

    And in keeping with modern-day influencer parents: He actually never really had a lot of a relationship with his parents to begin with. He was raised by a nanny and then put into a boarding school, and only had very little contact with his parents. Later in life, he only sporadically visited his parents, never returned to his childhood home (which was the books were based on) and after his dad died, he completely dropped contact with his mother.

     

    If a country needs to overly emphasise an ideal, that's usually because that ideal doesn't apply in that country ("Land of the free", "Democratic people's republic of ...").

    If a person needs to subscribe to patriotism, it's usually because they have never accomplished anything better in their life than being born in a specific place.

    view more: next ›