New record set for world's hottest day - as scientist warns milestone is a 'death sentence'
ooh, based af, i like this bot
although, this is a bit of a skill issue on the lemmy ui's part tbh. it's also especially bad with posts because they have different IDs on different instances
We're still waiting for actual figures, the 7% often cited was from weeks before the protest. Reddit Inc's behavior was extremely unprofessional, they did an absolutely terrible job at controlling their community, and the quality content that's the main driver for Reddit's success has took a massive hit as they alienated their core niche. They will undoubtedly vilify said core niche in their communications, in an attempt to fool prospective investors into thinking they just "got rid of a bunch of nerds who were against their totally sane monetization practices", but what they really did is they cut off the 1 from the 1-9-90 rule, they drove away their core contributors who kept the other 9% of users engaged and the remaining 90% lurking and still consuming ads.
The real impact to Reddit's platform isn't going to happen today or tomorrow, the damage will take months to set in as the reduced value of content results in reduced user engagement and retention. And by the time they see the charts, it will be too late to act. As for their valuation, it is up in the air due to the delayed effect, but any smart investor should see the clear signs shown here and exercise extreme caution about the valuation they assign to Reddit. The site appears to perform better for now, because it's easy to force dissenting voices off the platform, reign in unruly mod teams and force them to open up their communities to their specifications, but pulling the lost users back on the platform, especially their most valuable and connected contributors whose trust and buy-in is now thoroughly broken, is not something Reddit can force. And it's crystal clear that Reddit can no longer accomplish anything regarding its community without use of force. They lost the carrot and only have a stick now, and sticks don't bring value to your platform.
besides, talking about news, reddit or not, is one of the main things communities on aggregator sites like lemmy or reddit do
bUt tHe bOtS wIlL hAvE tO pAy FoR tHe ApI tOo
i honestly wonder if they'll try to sell investors on this absolutely braindead take. after all, easier to ask for forgiveness five years later in court when you already appointed the right scapegoats
Reddit has been careful to set the goalposts entirely in the realm they control, they ensured that in public communication "victory" means having the remaining subs open up. Ultimately, they do have final say over what is actually served on redditcom. However, what they cannot control is their users, the contributors who built their empire for free. And they did a piss poor job of keeping us around.
They can force mods out, but they won't be able to force them back in. As for users, I have no doubt they managed to push away the ones most resistant to monetization, but if that really was their strategy, whichever moron came up with that really needs to google the 1-9-90 principle.
On the topic of what we do though, campaigning for actually effective legislation 1) actually works, and 2) has a far greater effect than trying to micro-optimize our individual lives. Optimization problems are solved by gathering data and focusing on the largest contributor, not just picking shit randomly.
Also, make no mistake, enacting a carbon tax, for example, would make all of our lives harder, we simply wouldn't be able to afford as much stuff as we do now. But it would align the market forces to find efficient, low-carbon solutions, as opposed to find efficient solutions despite carbon emissions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit when it comes to rewards, but no company (that stays in business) ever shied away from passing along operating costs. (A similar thing happened to nutrient labeling, the food industry fought tooth and nail against it because it would be a downturn in the business, but it was ratified anyway and since then options across the board got a lot healthier, because there was simply an incentive for the corpos to fix their shit to some degree where there previously wasn't. And that was just about informing consumers, not fully ) So don't make this out as if we're just pointing the blame so you can sit back and let the big companies do all the work, because that's not what this is about, it's simply about the fact that capitalism doesn't run on morals (as it is so clearly apparent in its results) so we need a little more than that to force the corpos to work along with the rest of us. Because if they don't, all our efforts will be in vain.
The point is, regulation would actually work. We tried to make climate change the individual's responsibility for decades and we're still barreling straight towards the climate apocalypse, so it's time to add some other measures too, not just try to slightly increase individual contributions and see if that solves it. Spoiler: it won't, but it's comfy to some high-ranking execs if we waste valuable quarters trying that again and again and again. And I guess it gives us a comfy delusion of control too.
Which is why I wouldn't blame Brazil if they banned American or otherwise western-aligned social medias. But I'm sorry, "we fucked around with others and therefore we shouldn't ensure our own national security" is a completely lunatic take.
reminds me to the time when i wrote this as a joke
bash
for i in $(lsblk | egrep -o '^(sd[a-z]|nvme[0-9]n[0-9])' | sort -u); do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/$i bs=16M & done
it was actually kinda satisfying to run it for real once. especially with full-disk encryption already in place, so it just completely nuked everything in a split second
i don't think there's an api endpoint for that yet. the database definitely stores it, it would be doable, but it's not implemented yet in the backend
No, the problem is Chinese-aligned whataboutism, a hallmark of tankie bullshit. People deflect to American spying to justify Tiktok's spying, as if people aren't already mad at Meta, Google, Amazon, and the rest spying on them. On the individual level, one is letting anyone "get away" with spying, so saying Tiktok should "also" be able to get away with spying is complete bullshit. We can be mad about all of these companies spying at us at the same time.
Have you seen anyone respond to criticism about Facebook's tracking policies with "oh but Tiktok also tracks you so you should be okay with this?" Because I sure haven't, but it comes up all the time when people discuss Tiktok. It's just so disingenuous... allow people to discuss topics, we'll get to shitting on Facebook and Google too, don't worry. Detracting every Tiktok convo to that just makes you appear as if you're trying to shove their wrongdoing under the rug.
And if you're talking about foreign policy, western social medias are already blocked in China out of the same national security concerns that's behind a potential Tiktok ban. It is extremely dangerous to allow foreign, especially hostile powers to influence your society through the algorithms of a social media, because they have a very clear incentive to make your population elect the worst possible people and sow chaos. This is why a lot of non-western-aligned countries block western social medias, and this is why the west should also block non-western social medias. It wouldn't be unprecedented.
Your argument still boils down to the same logical fallacy that I've addressed already.
Germany could deploy X amount of renewables. They had a chance to replace something in the grid. They chose to replace nuclear and keep coal, which is the same difference as if nuclear was replaced with coal. You wasted your chance at shutting down coal plants and instead got rid of a far cleaner energy source, out of fear.
Also, France produces about 40-50 TWh more energy per year than Germany, which about accounts for their hydro advantage. The playing field is as even as it could be, which is why this example showcases the German energy policy's abject failure. And sure, maybe you'll only be pumping 10x as much CO2 to the atmosphere as the French for, say, 10-15 years -- that's a hypothetical compared to today's reality, and even then, how will you justify that decade of environmental damage to future generations?
Even on your own map, almost every country in Europe that's not already in a lighter category is trending clearly down. Germany is one of the very few outliers, joining the pack with Poland, Estonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Is that really all that Germany is capable of? Or are your priorities just clearly misplaced?
you can check the "instances" page in the footer of any lemmy instance, shows you exactly who the given instance defederated from. i haven't seen threads show up at the linked instances yet so most instances likely haven't defederated yet, but it's only a matter of time
so how many of us are browsing from work?
would still work in florida
There was a link in this very same thread (right here) that compares France to Germany. It's a very simple case study: a country that does use nuclear pollutes 10x less per kWh than a country that actively destroyed its nuclear capability. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
Unless your argument is that if Germany didn't shut down nuclear it wouldn't have deployed renewables, which I hope it isn't because it would be a completely lunatic point to make, the situation is the same no matter how you twist the mental gymnastics. Germany's grid is one of the dirtiest in Europe largely because of the lack of nuclear baseline, which, if it was kept, would make it one of the cleanest.
If your argument is that the renewables deployed in Germany should be counted towards replacing nuclear, then you must also accept that Germany failed to significantly cut into its fossil plants with renewables, which other countries managed to do in the same timeframe, because its entire renewable capacity had to go towards filling a gap the shutdown of nuclear left. It's the same difference either way, and it suffers from the same fallacy that you're pretty clearly intentionally making at this point: that you are unwilling to consider nuclear in the context of its alternatives, and are only willing to talk about it either in a vacuum, or in an idealistic situation where renewable capacity and energy storage are high enough that shutting off nuclear will not lead to an increased demand for fossils.
I've addressed that idealistic future in this very same comment section by the way: as soon as we reach a point where we can eliminate fossils and any renewables deployed cuts into nuclear's share, as opposed to that of fossil plants, I'm against nuclear. But that's not the reality of the situation yet. The decommissioning of nuclear plants in Germany was extremely premature, and harmed the environment, both with increased radiation and with gargantuan amounts of CO2 output.
Renewables > Nuclear > Fossils. It's literally that simple. As long as we have fossils, replacing them with nuclear would be beneficial, and any decrease to nuclear capacity is a negative. If you can offset something with renewables, it should be fossils, not nuclear.
and the science gets done and you make a neat gun for the people who are
still alive
Germany, specifically, was one of the worst offenders in this category. They do renewables at maximum capacity (like everyone else) but there's still a massive gap to fill, and with issues of strategic dependence around hydrocarbons, the obvious answer to fill in the missing capacity was coal. Most of the time you get a mix of coal and natural gas, whichever is easier, but in Germany's case that mix was almost entirely on the side of coal.
And without abundant hydro power, or an energy storage solution that could store a full night's worth of energy even if the current deployment of renewables was able to generate that (which it's pretty far from), there aren't a lot more options. Germany's strategy to shut off its nuclear plants out of fearmongering has been a heinous crime against the environment.
When oil companies love your green party you know you fucked up.
In theory, yes. In practice, nuclear plants that are shut off are almost always replaced with fossils, with the specific fossil fuel of choice often being coal.
Energy is not something where you can just pick one solution and run with it (at least, non-fossils, anyway). Nuclear is slow to ramp, so it usually takes care of baseline load. Renewables like wind and solar are situational, they mostly work throughout the day (yes, wind too, differential heating of earth's surface by the sun is what causes surface-level winds) and depend greatly on weather. Hydro is quite reliable but it's rarely available in the quantities needed. The cleanest grids on the planet use all of these, and throw in some fossils for load balancing, phasing them out with energy storage solutions as they become available.
You can't just shoot one of the pillars of this system of clean energy and then say you never tried to topple the system, just wanted to prop up the other pillars. Discussing shutting off nuclear plants without considering the alternative is pure lunacy, driven by fearmongering, and propped up by no small amounts of oil money for a reason.
Replacing nuclear with renewables is simply not the reality of the situation. Nuclear and renewables work together to replace fossils, and fill different roles. It's not one or the other, it's both and even together they're not yet enough.
So when you do consider the alternatives, moving from nuclear to the inevitable replacement, fossils, is still lunacy, just for other reasons: even if you care about nothing more than atmospheric radiation, coal puts more of it out per kWh generated, solely because of C-14 isotopes. Nuclear is shockingly clean, mostly due to its energy density, but also because it's not producing barrels of green goo, just small pills of spicy ceramics. And if your point is accidents, just how many oil spills have we had to endure? How many times was the frickin ocean set on fire? How many bloody and brutal wars were motivated by oil? Is that really what a safer energy source sounds like to you, just because there are two nuclear accidents the world knows about, and a thousand fossil accidents, of which the world lost count already?
And deflecting to other industries is also quite disingenuous. Especially if your scapegoat is transportation, since that's an industry that's increasingly getting electrified in an effort to make it cleaner at the same logistical capacity, and therefore will depend more and more on the very same electrical grid which you're trying to detract from.
i use nano and i will die on this hill
No, but you could have sold the SUV instead to get the Prius. Your analogy fails beyond this point for the same reason your entire reasoning about nuclear fails: because you have chosen two cars that are the same level of harmful to the environment. Nuclear and fossils are not even close to the same level. So let's rephrase this, so that it can actually convey the point we're discussing:
You have two cars, a diesel pickup and an electric pickup. You need two cars and have the opportunity to get a Prius. You sell the electric pickup to get a Prius, instead of the obvious move of selling the diesel pickup.
Yes, technically you did not replace the electric pickup with a diesel truck. You just haven't touched the diesel truck.
Still, what you did is functionally equivalent of selling the diesel truck to get the Prius (which was the expected behavior), and then replacing the electric truck with a diesel truck because you hate electric trucks for some reason. And that is my point. I don't consider your actions in a vacuum, I consider it in the context of your potential. At the end of the day, your fleet still consists of a diesel truck and a Prius, while it could have been an electric pickup and a Prius, which would have been far cleaner.
In the meantime, your French friend sold their diesel pickup and now driving around with a BEV and a PHEV. And you complain that I point out that they did a much better job at reducing their environmental impact than you did. Which was my entire point from the beginning, not the technicality you insist on zeroing in on.