Aesthesiaphilia @ Aesthesiaphilia @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

588

Joined

2 yr. ago

Remember, the Antichrist is not just "really evil person". It's "really evil person who convinces a lot of people that he's a good person and a prophet".

Most of those costs are similar for renewables...rather than a building it's the production and installation of fields of solar panels, for example.

In both cases I'm pretty sure it's a negligible fraction of the lifecycle emissions compared to energy generated.

Honestly I don't care if it's solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, or nuclear, as long as it displaces fossil fuels. And it's feasible on a very near time scale.

If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

We need an "all of the above" approach. This fight between nuclear and renewables is just stirred up by fossil fuel interests. Either is good. Both is good.

"Renewable" typically means renewable on human time scales, so fossil fuels don't count.

Biofuel would be renewable.

If you consider fusion to be "nuclear", that's renewable. But yeah, not fission.

It is zero emission though.

It's just the one but he's all over the place

Dude has a serious fixation on calling everyone a groomer

I am now intensely curious about the series of "deletedbymoderator" comments that led the conversation to this

I normally agree with xkcd, but this is a huge straw man.

It's not the government oppressing you, but you are being oppressed. It's not the government restricting your speech, but your speech is being restricted.

People complaining about their speech getting restricted aren't saying "...by the government" and it's a cop out to pretend that's what they're talking about in the first place. That's not the conversation when it comes to canceling and deplatforming. That's not what people are complaining about. When people say "the right to free speech" in this context, they aren't talking about a specific legal, constitutional doctrine. They're talking about the social contract. They're saying, "hey, we generally believe in freedom as a concept, why are other people shushing me for voicing my opinion?"

Note I'm not a "free speech absolutist", I don't think we should give everyone a megaphone and tell em to have fun. Sometimes canceling is the appropriate response. There's a lot of social media assholes out there stirring up shit and they should get muzzled.

But this particular argument is bullshit.

The argument we should be making is this: what you are saying is itself so heinous and dangerous that it is a violation of the social contract. The government is not silencing you, but we will.

And we should also keep in mind that just because the government isn't silencing someone, that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine that we do. Mob mentality is a thing and sometimes we (the mob) can go too far. We should be measured about canceling and deplatforming.

I'm still seeing no ads

You use thousands of products. A majority of them probably have some heinous shit behind their executives.

Yeah but Mozilla isn't tainted by it? Come on, that's ridiculous. He's not building some anti-gay code into the software, the homepage of Brave (or Firefox) isn't "lol fuck the woke".

Dig into any company, or any CEO, you'll find something to get angry about. People are people. Products are products. Open source products especially so.

Such a brave article

eyyyy

It's the whole fediverse

Yankee Doodle went to TOWN on that British ass

Why is everyone so anxious nowadays?

What's there to dread?

Not to mention Ukraine doesn't want to just flatten a village with artillery

Eyyyyy

Pretty sure that when we plug in a correction factor for the relative age of the Fediverse userbase, "today's lucky 10,000" becomes more like "today's lucky 10 million"

I don't know a lot, so maybe you know more than me. The tracking and logging is via cookies, right?

The same cookies that brave automatically blocks?

Again, maybe they do some tracking via some other method that I don't know about; I'm not an expert. But it seems to me that Brave was essentially scamming those companies by using their referral codes but denying them any useful data. Great for brave, sucks for the companies, shouldn't matter to us.

He's probably done some horrible thing

Edit: yep https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/mozilla-ceo-eich-resigns-after-controversy/

Brendan Eich steps down following calls for his ouster over his support for California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8.

Wow, on the nose. Literally, yes.

Or hoping he somehow gets disqualified, or says the wrong thing and makes his rabid base turn on him

Or maybe they're hoping he'll flee to Russia

Basically, Trump is playing a dangerous game, and there's several ways it could go wrong. None of these guys can beat Trump, but if Trump goes down for any other reason they want to be waiting in the wings as second-best in the eyes of his followers. But in the meantime they don't want to just get completely consumed by him, and they want to appeal to moderates.

If Trump perceives them as a threat, he'll turn on them.

If they try to ride Trump's coattails, he'll use them and then abandon them like everyone else.

Their best bet is to not directly confront Trump but also not fall under his shadow. Supportive, but separate.