JubilantJaguar @ JubilantJaguar @lemmy.world

European. Contrarian liberal. Insufferable green. History graduate. **I nev

---

Read more

Posts

10

Comments

1,481

Joined

2 yr. ago

And also in the oil giants, which are far worse for the world than Tesla.

Search results, sure. Personally I have rarely if ever wanted to save or share such URLs. But sure.

Sure, but my script only gets rid of the second and later parameters, i.e. ones with & not ?. Personally I don't think I've ever seen a single site where an & param is critical. These days there few where the ? matters either, but yes YT is a holdout.

automatically modify a YT link to a designated invidious instance or whatever

Surely that's the link that should be posted, then?

using your GitHub

It's not yours, it's Microsoft's.

This is a really good question. I've also been wondering why there seems to be no obvious go-to service for blogging, i.e. full-form authored text, in the same way there are for photos (Pixelfed), video (PeerTube), and of course microblogging and discussion forums like this one. Seems like an oversight.

Yes, there's WordPress. But IMO WordPress is just overkill for most use cases, with its massive database backend. Text is text, the web was designed for text and it worked before databases existed. A static site generator will generate a flat text site just fine (I've used them) but you need to host it.

Someday I’ll try self hosting but for now, I’ll pay for decent services.

Maybe you shouldn't even need to try?

I've changed my mind on this one. I used to believe in the utopian internet dream of everyone hosting their own stuff on their own domains. But managing domains and hosting are both a PITA. They require money, technical expertise (because security), and commitment (or else your site goes away). The URL of a blog article posted, say, right here is probably going to be more permanent that it would be on the average private site. And Archive.org is recording the content either way. I've come to the view that sites should be left to organisations, and individuals should do themselves a favor and just affiliate themselves to one of those sites. Against payment if appropriate.

Which leaves the question of which site?

You never define "clean".

To strip excess URL parameters (i.e. beginning "&", almost certainly junk) if the clipboard buffer contains a URL and only a URL (Wayland only):

    
if url=$(printf '%s' "$(wl-paste --no-newline | awk '$1=$1' ORS=' ')" | egrep -o 'https?://[^ ]+') ; then
  wl-copy "${url%%\&*}"
fi

  

The type of liquid should not make much difference. It's basically inescapable. At this point there's not much left to do except cross fingers.

Or drink tap water, which has far less of it and is obviously much better for the environment. To lose excess chlorine, just let the water stand overnight.

Going round in circles here.

It costs less, takes less energy, and therefore creates less climate-heating CO2 pollution, to make plastic out of virgin petroleum than it does to create plastic out of plastic. That should not be surprising: a thermoplastic is just petroleum with the molecules fixed into hard-to-break bonds. Of course it's going to be more efficient to start with the raw product.

We all agree that we should be using less plastic. But assuming an equal amount of plastic usage, and assuming that waste plastic is kept out of waterways in sealed landfills (plastic does not biodegrade so it will not produce methane), then it makes more sense from an environmental perspective to simply use virgin plastic.

Maybe that's uncomfortable but it's true. Plastic recycling is a mirage: it serves mainly to make consumers feel better about themselves. The closed loop just makes no sense due to the energy problem. That is not the case with glass, paper and especially aluminum, all of which are very efficiently recycled.

Read this. I've said enough here.

PS: added emphasis

To reduce plastic pollution, of course.

Energy consumption is the important metric because it almost certainly involves pollution. The supply of petroleum is essentially inexhaustible, certainly for the purpose of making plastic.

There's a lot of debate around the Bluesky relay and whether or not it's posible to "scale down" ATProto.

Luckily, with all the attention that Bluesky and ATProto have gotten lately, there's a lot of interest in running alternative relays just in case things go bad, and I think it may be possible that funding for a public good relay might materialize to protect from the potential failure or compromise of the Bluesky relay.

But I also want to draw attention to another non-obvious thing about ATProto: the relay is not required.

Let's do a thought experiment. [...]

Etc. But I'm certain everyone here has actually read the article so they'll already be familiar with that thought experiment.

Fair point.

You're doing great already. At a macro level, the battle is all but lost. A third of a billion tons of plastic is produced every year. Almost nobody cares outside a smallish fringe of society in very developed countries (i.e. us). And the hydrocarbons industry needs new things to do with the oil it can't burn. Also, plastic recycling is a red herring: it takes less energy to use virgin petroleum.

The two priorities IMO should be:

• Keep it out of waterways as much as possible. Above all this will mean education and resources in the developing world. In rich countries with waste management, the hard-to-fix issue is microplastics from synthetic clothes
• Minimize the health risks

For the second one, my basic principles are:

• Never eat or drink from plastic receptacles to which heat has been applied
• Avoid the rest where possible but don't stress about it

Microplastics are going to be a major environmental and health challenge because the problem is just so intractable. But there's only so much an individual can do. Be a good consumer, be a good citizen and at the very least never forget to vote, and then just relax. It's bad enough as it is without adding pointless anxiety to it.

So. Nobody gonna push back? It's quite a convincing article. Especially this bit:

This is something I want to put a bit more focus on: how important the PDS is.

Giving people their own PDS is soooo crucial to having a free ( as in freedom ) internet. This needs to be something that I can:

• Self host or have somebody else host for me
• Download all of my data from, whenever I want to, and
• Grant other apps read and write access to

That last piece is crucial to the existence of all of these different ATProto apps. We are giving people their own data store and then letting them connect that to all kinds of different tools and experiences.

It does at least seem like the protocol is more sophisticated, and so perhaps carries more potential, than (say) the one powering this site.

Except if you're going there for the single good reason there is for going to to Moon, i.e, to show everyone how dead and lifeless it is and how beautiful and fragile the Earth is by comparison. As William Anders did very successfully with Ektachrome color film in 1968.

Important to keep in mind that decent journalism does not fall from trees. The "greedy and trackers-filled" sites are often just ordinary newspapers and magazines that had their business model turned upside down by the internet. They only have so many options left when big tech has cornered the online ad market using spyware and when most people choose not to subscribe on grounds of "bias" or whatever - very often the same people who have no problem making regular payments to genuinely greedy corporations like Amazon or Netflix.

But I do agree that we should pay more attention how news sources are funded.

The profit-nonprofit metric is pretty good but not perfect. Firstly because journalism is de-facto always nonprofit. That's why even good newspapers are often beholden to billionaires. Even thousands of subscribers can't pay for a product of the quality of the Washington Post (though it's getting close). There are zero evil capitalists skimming off the profits of journalism, because journalism is just not a profitable business.

Secondly because even audience-funded news sources can be biased, usually in line with their audience's prejudices (Unherd and The Free Press spring to mind). Any NGO or cooperative can write an ostensibly fact-based article but that doesn't make it a credible source. This is what journalistic ethics are supposed to cover, similar to academic ethics work if you're writing, say, history.

I think the basic test should be: Does this news source have multiple lines of accountability?

• wholly owned by a single multinational corp? - avoid
• funded entirely by a non-profit foundation - check the owner's mission
• a cooperative of accredited journalists (a few exist) - fine but beware individual biases
• has lots of subscribers and also ads - should be OK but check specifics
• state broadcaster - fine when accountable to independent board (BBC, CBC), else beware

Yes, literally rock doves. And yet for some reason the white doves are beautiful symbols of peace and the rock-colored doves are filthy flying vermin.

My theory: pigeons are dirty and scruffy because they survive on trash, and that's why humans hate them. We see our ugly reflection in them.

Pigeons are so lovable. People bat them away and kick at them and yet they never seem to take offense, in fact they come right back like nothing happened. I wish I had that kind of patience and fortitude.

Even "babbling rants" are easy to read if you just Capitalize. The. Sentences.