Soleos @ Soleos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

203

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are people willing to pay $80 for your game, $60, $40, $20, $10, and $5. You might be able get someone willing to pay $10 to pay $15 with good marketing, but you will never get them to pay $60. So when you've gone through most people willing to pay $60 and $40, you might as well go through the rest of the market. It doesn't cost you that much more than you're already spending on servers, so why not make that extra money.

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstand you. Are you suggesting you'd be an a****** for trying to persuade your friends and family to vote the way you want them to by voicing your objections, opinions, and making arguments?

He clearly said in context "I let them vote in peace without objection or argument frome me". Kind of like how I can either let your comment go or choose to respond without claiming to have control over you. The man is still ignorant AF though.

Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of. While the article is still misleading (shame Guardian) the notion that a small proportion of companies, both state and private owned (100-200), are responsible for the majority (>50%) of global emissions.

Looking at the updated graph of annual emissions, it seems like this is still true, though I haven't counted the companies. Again I agree the 72% figure is misleading, but I am pushing back on the alternative implication that relatively few companies are not actually making up the majority of annual emissions.

Yes and no. The Carbon Majors Report provides two ways of looking at global emissions: Cumulative and Annual. The table you showed reflects the Cumulative Emissions Since Industrial Revolution (1751-2022)

While not reported in the Guardian article, the same 2017 report stated 72% (p5) of global industrial GHGs in 2015 came from 224 companies, with the sample breakdown in the 2017 report, Appendix II (p15). As you can see, pretty much all of those producers are private/state-owned companies and much closer to the current picture of annual emissions. I'm not sure what counts as "industrial", but crunching the raw numbers of 30565/46073 Mt (Global Emissions, statcan) it works out to about 66% of global emissions in 2015.

I think there's probably something wrong with the math around per-response water consumption, but it is true that evaporative cooling consumes potable water, in that the water cannot be reused until it cycles through the atmosphere and is recaptured from precipitation, same way you consume water by drinking and pissing it out, or agriculture consumes it for growing things. Fresh water usage is a major concern and bottleneck, especially with climate change. With the average data centre using 300k gallons of water per day, and Google's entire portfolio using 5bn gallons per day, it's not nothing.

I find it's helpful to practice parsing political arguments and recognizing underlying worldviews as well as understanding and applying my own. With the right attitude it can be a compassionate and worthwhile way to put good out into the world. But still, have to be measured with how invested you get and know when to walk away.

EV never has to be recharged... Because it recharges on the way downhill.

"World's largest EV never has to be plugged in" is sufficiently click-baity without being so dumbly self contradicting

I wonder what proportion of it is also due to people fleeing 1 million + average house markets during the pandemic work from home wave. Not saying this about you, but it makes me think it's funny how the common refrain of "Don't like it? Just move" is often uttered by NIMBYs.

First, I am not on Israel's side in this matter. I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned, dismantling apartheid and establishing self-determination for Palestinians. However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal. Just as I am in support of Ukraine's resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.

Sure, neither of us are directly affected won't be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.

What does destruction of Israel as a genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate look like to you? Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel? Does it look like the massive bombing campaign, displacement, and destruction of capacity for civilians to live that Israel has perpetrated in Gaza?

Okay, so let's go with your position that attacking soldiers with explosive weapons in civilian areas are not justifiable.

Based on your beliefs, what do you see as a justifiable response to Hezbollah's year long barrage of rockets and missiles into Israeli cities. Keep in mind Hezbollah by and large conducts these strikes directly embedded in or right beside civilian sites. And they also store weapons in civilian sites.

The goal now is not to say which is worse, there's plenty of blame to go around. The goal is to understand how you think about conflict and the principles you believe in that shape your views.

That doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase to be more direct.

What do you believe makes for acceptable and unacceptable civilian casualties (e.g. children) in urban warfare and what principles do you draw on to form these beliefs? Please use an example from a side you feel are "the good guys".

If you're a pacifist or believe not a single civilian casualty is acceptable, what would your approach be to resolving a conflict where your civilian population is being attacked with rockets/missiles?

Serious question, would you condone assassinating Putin with an IED even if several children were killed? Would it be better if they used a missile strike with 5x the civilian casualties because at least it isn't an IED? Would it be better to do nothing and allow an opposing military force to continue bombarding your cities and your children with rockets and missiles?

I abhore the mass bombings and utter destruction Israel has wrought over the last year. It is beyond the pale. I would genuinely have prefered it if they could've taken out all of Hamas by blowing up cell phones in their pockets instead.

Oh snap, that's awesome! I wasn't aware of this. I assumed NATO would be consistent with the US on mines. Thank you for sharing this.

I'll modify my argument to "Even the US and Ukraine use mines"

It's interesting though, according to my research the distinction between mines and weapons lie in how it's activated. For example, the C19 ex-Claymore is now remote detonation only to comply with the Ottawa treaty because it can only be activated remotely and cannot be used with an indiscriminate activator like a tripwire. Therefore it is a weapon. With this les, the pagers/radios are more akin to weapons rather than mines.

So booby traps are allowed, as long as someone is there to decide when to press the button, which the Israelies clearly did.

Did you forget that every "responsible" western power(Edit: Ottawa treaty) the US and Ukraine (who was a signatory of the Ottawa treaty) also has an arsenal of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines which are specifically meant to be hidden and disguised? Quite literally booby traps with long-lasting risks for civilian lives. Many children have lost their lives due to mines, yet they are still deemed acceptable in war.

Anything that risks civilian lives is pretty messed up. But even compared to the mines being used in Ukraine, the pagers/radios were far more targeted and posed less risk to civilians.

Yeah no, the exploding pagers and radios, which were from an intercepted supply specifically for Hezbollah, was far more targeted than anyone could reasonably ask for.

Like yes, Israel's overall actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been horribly ruthless and against civilian well-being. And there is the broader context of Palestine. But this is what you're outraged by?

If everything between bombing Hezbollah and targeted attacks like the pagers/radio are off the table, like what would you actually do if a non-governmental military was indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets into your cities for an entire year? Seriously, how would you actually respond if you were in the leadership position?

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

The 79% statistic does not seem true,, at least if we're assuming the American context. The sentiments around legal abortion are more similar than that between men and women, with 38% of men opposed and 33% of women opposed to legal abortion in most cases.