Touching_Grass @ Touching_Grass @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

870

Joined

2 yr. ago

Funny you say that because we are running out of sand. We can produce it but it'll just make things more expensive. Gangs have been stealing beaches

Anybody want to help me distribute steroids to the left.

I think it would be funny if they protested and showed up but looked way tougher than anyone else

I would negotiate that with them because maybe Bob doesn't care but Alice does or vice versa. Now if I was either bob or Alice. Yes I'm calculating fuel, maintenance and meal cost into pay.

How many places in the world do you think you could describe as cousin fucking meth heads and have someone go "sounds like my hometown"

I'm not ready for this

When industry is literally stuff like cars, industrial equipment, oil production, basically all chemical production, and so on and so forth.

All things required for manufacturing goods. Its in the link.

Cheap disposable plastic mall trinkets are not a major industrial sector.

That's a narrow constraint you put on this, it isn't mine.

The vast majority of industrial spend is stuff that actually improves people’s lives.

Improve lives how? That's a broad statement. My life can be improved by getting a new car every week. Doesn't mean it didn't cost a large amount or energy to produce and dispose of.

Maybe. Just maybe. People are able to think for themselves.

If that were true, how does a lawyer convince someone to divulge information in a deposition of a person that did not want to divulge information. You make a choice, but your choices are influenced by more than ourselves.

I provided one link for support. That does not mean its the only thing. Its used to show there is evidence and you are suppose to read between the lines that there is a whole field with much more. Its a stepping stone, not a destination. But you said this:

It’s extra hilarious that you link a study on subliminal messaging, which is one of the fields in psychology that have been embroiled in reproducibility issues and fraud.

"I believe this only underscores my point. I don't think you are a psychologist. But this is something we all have heard online lots in these arguments. We all have been influenced by this refuting sentence and often repeat it. I've done it in the past. It's something that affects our choices because at some point it has left a memorable impact on us. If you search for 'reproducibility,' you'll find headline after headline on the topic. Oftentimes, it's used in internet arguments by people like us to dismiss things. It's a learned behavior in our culture war discourse. It has been ingrained as a way to reject an argument and to disregard the 'other side.' You didn't engage with the study itself. You didn't demonstrate that the article I shared was incorrect. Instead, you simply rejected it by citing 'reproducibility problems.' That's a learned behavior. You didn't independently pore over academic studies to come to this conclusion; rather, you were influenced by someone else to use this argument in these instances.

The vast majority of this doesn't constitute a significant portion of the economy or fossil fuel emissions.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that.

Industry is responsible for more than 20% of all emissions. But there's more to that 20% if you throw in what it takes to create any widget sold.

Products don't simply appear on store shelves; there's no such thing as a free lunch. It involves a complex process: raw resources are mined and extracted, transformed into usable materials, and then shipped to factories across the planet. These materials undergo processing and are transported to other locations, where they are built into widgets and once again shipped to store shelves. These items are often owned for as little time as possible and then discarded, contributing to the ever-growing pile of waste generated by consumer purchases.

Each of these steps requires energy, and in many cases, this energy is produced in countries with lax regulations on energy production. Another issue is known as "supply chain sprawl," where logistics and supply chains are spread out due to globalization. This can result in parts being loaded onto large shipping vessels, which are responsible for emitting more than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and then shipped back and forth across the ocean. There are astonishing stories of parts that are shipped across the ocean, attached to a board with just four screws, only to be shipped back to their place of origin before being shipped across the ocean once again for sale. Each of these steps requires electricity and power generation, whether it's for moving ships, manufacturing machinery, transportation, or maintaining the lights. All of these factors add up, some obvious and some less so.

You can choose to ignore it, but you can't deny that it all comes at a cost. One of the most significant reductions we could make in the fight against climate change is by reducing our consumerist habits, as they have been ingrained into our culture by advertisers like Edward Bernays and other psychologists from the Mad Men era, who figured out how to influence the masses and promote consumerism." Think of the dent we could make immediately by just not buying shit and if we have to, buying shit that lasts a lifetime or as long as possible.

under their own motivation

You have never been under your own motivation. Motivation is a hodge podge of multiple contributing factors where many are out of your control. Which is why there is big money in convincing you that you are in control. Its the information age now. They know you better than you know yourself.

A recent book called Buyology, collected findings from numerous studies in neuromarketing, concluding that: subliminal advertising works (and bypasses conscious rational thought or conscious objections), emotional reactions to products can be implanted into the subconscious mind, and increased brain activity during an advert may be linked to an increased desire to buy products.

yeah, they “convinced us” to want to buy things. Dumbest Marxist conspiracy theory out there.

When did consumerism become a Marxist conspiracy.

When I grew up, it wasn't. We all understanding that department stores and companies sold us all kinds of things we didn't need and in order to do that they had to create FOMO. Marketers job was to make viewers insecure. Make girls feel ugly without the latest fashion. Make guys feel unmanly without their BBQ or truck.

Without this constant advertising we do not want this stuff. that's why advertising is a billion dollar industry. Life pre department store era , we're talking pre 50s, you'd be considered insane to have the stuff we do and purchase like we do. Its still insane just acceptable to be such a glutton because advertisers made it normal to consume.

Too soon

Why do you care if you exist. Are you the Queen of england or something.

We could store the nuclear waste beside the plastic we dump in the poorer countries

People don't organize unless there is a wealthy benefactor behind them that can fund it. I would bet good money that behind the French riots was a Steve Bannon, RFK Jr or whatever Europe's version of those are. Its impossible to grass roots anything in today's world. It's like thinking you can walk into a chess tournament and clean house. You're competing with people for attention in a space where you're out gunned. The internet only looks like it's fuelled by grassroots movements. It's all bullshit. The vast majority of it is controlled by powerful people with lots of money competing for their interests

Oh right the rich are rich because they convinced us to consume all kinds of needless stuff through constant advertising and marketing. And the manufacturing, warehousing and selling of those products all cost energy we get from fossil fuels is the issues. So silly. Eat me.

Are we back to freaking out about the anarchists cookbook

so chatgpt can scrap data?

How are people not seeing the other side of this.

AI gives regular people access to things in society that traditionally have been tools of the upper crust. Lower income families could use AI to develop meal planners, financial planners and even access simple medical and legal advice. It gives regular folk a pocket assistant.

I would hate to take these tools away from us because GRRM might not get his $5 because his work was 7 of the 1.3 million books among other things ingested.

AI isn't reproducing these peoples works. It is creating entirely knew things. Ingestion of information should be a right that is protected

Tried but because its not a vector image it gets pixelated when changing size and many of the images are pasted in a way that cuts off text

As much as I hate CA. Its like the third time I've seen them mentioned this morning. Were they in the news or did something happen?

Oog, what if by making this fire, it burns down the forest?

And people would be less likely to identify what AI can and can't do if we convince ourselves to limit our access to it.