hh93 @ hh93 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

337

Joined

2 yr. ago

If quantum computing can crack encrypted communication before we find a solution to make it safe against that thread we'll be in deep trouble if the wrong country gets hold of that tech first.

This is exactly the kind of research those people should be doing

1st: a computer scientist Specialized in cryptography won't solve stuff like world hunger.
2nd: google as a private company also shouldn't be - they should be taxed accordingly so the government can do it though

How is white noise even something that someone can have a license on?

Shouldn't it be identical no matter where you listen to it and therefore impossible to get money from?

If that's drinkable then definitely

Not sure if I'd trust a 20€ Amazon filter with US tap water in some regions

Yeah and if the head of an oil company decides to just stop producing then the price will jump for a bit but then others will fill it's place since demand didn't change.

I feel as if this study is only trying to make people angry and have a scapegoat while making them not change anything relevant.

Sure the use of jets and yachts by the richest is a huge asshole move but the biggest leverage is when everyone would stop eating meat or using bikes instead of cars whenever possible

Yeah using the local tap water and adding a water filter if necessary is the best option for sure

If you don't have a water source very close plastic beats glass very fast.

Glass is so much heavier that the additional fuel to transport it over 100km offsets whatever emissions plastic creates.

This is the classic "no good option" dilemma depending where you live.

In many parts of Europe you can buy the locally sourced water from glass bottles - but it doesn't make much sense buying glass bottles for climate change reasons otherwise

Won't stop the meat producing companies or the oil companies from existing - that just moves the emissions of them to their heirs.

That metric is really bad - as long as there's demand for gas or meat those emissions need to be attached to someone - and attaching them to the owner just takes away all responsibility from everyone and tells them that they don't have to change anything.

If BP would Stop producing oil tomorrow the price would probably jump but then other companies would step in and fill that gap and nothing would've changed pollution wise.

Or if I'm in the 10% bracken and have invested most of that money in the Stock-Market I'd get a fraction of the emissions of all companies in the world?

I feel like those articles are just so people have someone else to point fingers at and feel as if they don't have to change anything themselves.

Sure personal responsibility alone won't help without laws but those laws won't happen if people show that they are behind those measures.
I want to see a politician trying to triple the gas prices and the prices on meat and see that politician be elected.
People really think they are existing in a vacuum and companies are only polluting for the fun of it - but don't accept how the by far biggest contribution is the average Livestyle of everyone...

Banning private jets and things like that is probably a good idea to get people behind you but I feel as if it's mostly a gesture compared to a law that would slash meat consumption in half or tackle the fact that everyone sees going everywhere in their truck when biking or walking would've worked fine. The single person doesn't have power but everyone together has and politicians want to get elected so they only tackle an issue when they feel the people are behind them.

You forgot unregulated which usually even makes it to the front row in a lot of arguments completely denying the necessity to even have regulations at all...

For the same reason why we need quotas for businesses

Having a role model is hugely important for people picking up something.

If some girl plays chess and looks at the professional players and big tournaments there are no women there. So she likely will not pursue that path professionally. If there is a women's league then there the guarantee that there will be visibility for the winners which then creates more idols for young people and over the years increases the level of play until they are equal enough.

Not to mention the chess-clubs favouring boys on their training since they have a bigger chance to make it big and shine a spotlight on that club that produced this talent. With female only tournaments it's easier to create a name for yourself if you treat both genders equal and create the same talent for both sides there are so many fewer players.

Sure sounds dumb on paper but it's actually really necessary in order to create a pathway to more professional female players

I wish there was an Addon bundling a lot of those userscripts with an option to turn them on and off separately RES is really missing :/

Or if you have a the ability to easily leave the area completely

I think there was a scene showing a gay couple checking out Ken for a couple of seconds when they arrived at the beach

Would be very funny if they did leave that out in their release there and it still got banned for that since everyone knows that it's not about that why they don't want people seeing that movie

Even a lot of the AAA single player games have day 1 DLCs with skins or 15 different deluxe packages for preorder or something similar though

Doesn't need to be the in-game microtransactions but it's very rare today that everyone starts out with the same stuff in AAA games today

Germany had 16 years of conservative rule and still has the fat right surge

For them everything is left

And it had nothing to do with governments getting successful or not it's just social media connecting all the racists that previously where to scared to speak out and now there's proof that 20-30% of people are just racists and probably always where

Seems like sanctions are working after all - I wonder why so many people always tried to tell a different story?

felt the same with What we do in the Shadows

I think a lot of those kind of shows just need to get to know the characters better and see what works and what doesn't in the first season and then improve on that when viewers also have a better understanding of that

of course it's good - it's just that the angle they chose seems very selfish - but perhaps it's a way to get more people of their generation worried

First their generation creates a problem thinking it won't affect them and now that it starts threatening themselves they suddenly start having a problem with it - exactly my mind of humour...