My wording was hasty. I only envision that new structures should be expected to come with solar tiles or panels. Like, you spent half a mil on a new house, do an extra 10-20k to have a useful roof instead of a ridiculous summer passive heater.
And yes, you're right, trees should be #1, and the main point of the article was really the disappearance of green spaces and coverage. This brief spot is what was on my mind in my take on it:
Quicker actions could include erecting better shade structures at bus stops or implementing rules for construction to encourage the use of materials that generate less heat in the sun. For example, some cities in the Northeast — including Philadelphia and New York — provide financial incentives for “green roofs,” in which the top of a building is covered with plants.
So I guess I had an "old man yells at clouds" moment.
Build covers with solar panels on their roofs. Provide shade and generate money in the long run. Most brick-and-mortar shoppers would be more attracted to covered parking, too.
It blows my mind that an article about shade deserts doesn't mention covering with solar collection systems. We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.
When I googled it last, what I found was like, "fill the basin, then use your hands or a rag." That sounds pretty messy, if that's how those OG taint tubs work.
Yep, just like my body takes care of itself with fever and such when something multiplies too much and dumps its waste in me. Burn it out and flush it out, that's just "nature taking care of itself."
... an instrument on board the International Space Station, detected about 1.5 metric tons per hour. There’s no indication of how long it lasted.
An air permit application filed with the TCEQ in January 2020 said the company expected to routinely dump LNG into the air to the tune of 60 tons a year...
...a huge oilfield near the rocket site is thought to give off some 2.7 million tons of methane a year.
(My paraphrasing and emphasis added.)
I'm not saying one of those isn't a lot, though I am observing that we really really really need to ramp up renewables production to offset fossil fuel demand.
The one they replied to may have been criticizing "whataboutism", but it could also be (mis)interpreted as implying the USA has not had similar problems.
But who hasn’t killed their citizens in a simple misunderstanding? Or, if that doesn’t work, America Also Bad! \s
Ah, I should have said "from a domain you own or one of their own".
The use case I'm talking about, which is the use of arbitrary domains, not Proton-provided ones and not domains you own and control.
I see that Simple Login provides aliases from its own domains, but not a way to use an arbitrary domain.
Proton's address support overview mentions organizational addresses, but clarifies in the same doc that this is referring to a business plan where that whole organization will be using Proton.
Proton's switching guide discusses forwarding, and it only instructs the user to tell their contacts about the new Proton address, which defeats the purpose of forwarding addresses.
Here is further discussion about the missing functionality.
Meanwhile, Google lets you use up to 99 of your own email addresses from whatever domains they are.
But it is alone in its unique capabilities as an all-volunteer free site. That's not to say other free+volunteer sites don't exist, but, rather, that we can't lump it with others since they'll have their own goals for providing their free instances. And it obviously can't be compared to "social media sites", as that carries implicit connotation of for-profit sites.
atx_aquarian @ atx_aquarian @lemmy.world Posts 3Comments 345Joined 2 yr. ago
_