Yes, also Teslas
ltxrtquq @ ltxrtquq @lemmy.ml Posts 0Comments 224Joined 2 yr. ago
ltxrtquq @ ltxrtquq @lemmy.ml
Posts
0
Comments
224
Joined
2 yr. ago
I know you're being hyperbolic to try and make a point, but according to the International Maritime Organization:
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), expressed in CO2e — of total shipping (international, domestic and fishing) have increased from 977 million tonnes in 2012 to 1,076 million tonnes in 2018 (9.6% increase).
Whereas in a pdf from the EPA at the bottom of this page says passenger cars and light-duty trucks produced 1,046 million metric tons of CO2 in 2021.
So to recap, all maritime shipping in the world produced only slightly more CO2 than the passenger cars and light trucks only in the United States.
We already have at least a century of research telling us that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change. What's AI going to do at this point?
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
It's not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they're objectively bad for tax income.
It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns.
In the end the project ran for four years, concluding in 1979, but the data collection lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff. New governments at both federal and provincial levels reflected the changing intellectual and economic climate. Neither the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in Ottawa nor Sterling Lyon’s Tories in Manitoba were interested in continuing the GAI experiments. The fate of the original data—boxes and boxes of paper files on families containing questionnaires related to all aspects of social and economic functioning—was unclear. They were stored in an unpublicized location by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the end, only the Winnipeg sample, and only the labour market aspects of that sample, was ever made available. The Dauphin data, collected at great expense and some controversy from participants in the first large scale social experiment ever conducted in Canada, were never examined.
This study involved using one small town, Dauphin, as a a test for what happens when everyone in the population qualifies for the basic income. The study ran out of money long before the researchers originally thought it would, and the majority of the data wasn't analyzed until relatively recently.
The general result found in all the experiments was that secondary earners tended to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns. Effectively, married women used the GAI to finance longer maternity leaves. Tertiary earners, largely adolescent males, reduced their hours of work dramatically, but the largest decreases occurred because they began to enter the workforce later. This delay in taking a first job at an older age suggests that some of these adolescent males might be spending more years in school. The biggest effects, that is, could be seen as either an economic cost in the form of work disincentives or an economic benefit in the form of human capital accumulation.
New mothers and teenagers weren't required to spend as much time working
Money flowed to Dauphin families from MINCOME between 1974 and 1978. During the experiment, Dauphin students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts, while both before and after the experiment they were less likely than their urban counterparts and not significantly more or less likely than their rural counterparts to complete highschool. Grade 11 enrolments as a percentage of the previous year grade 10 enrolments show a similar pattern.
Highschool graduation rates went up
Overall, the measured impact was larger than one might have expected when only about a third of families qualified for support at any one time and many of the supplements would have been small. ...At the very least, the suggestive finding that hospitalization rates among Dauphin subjects fell by 8.5 percent relative to the comparison group is worth examining more closely in an era characterized by concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. In 1978, Canada spent $7.5 billion on hospital costs; in 2010 it was estimated to have spent $55 billion—8.5 percent of which adds up to more than $4.6 billion. While we recognize that one must be careful in generalizing potential health system savings, particularly because we use hospitals differently today than we did in 1978, the potential saving in hospital costs associated with a GAI seems worthy of consideration.
And hospitalization rates went down. There were other effects, like small businesses opening during the period of MINCOME and shutting down after, a possible decline in women under 25 having children, but none of this was evaluated for whether it was worth the money or not.
From the source of link 3:
Figure 17 Primary Reasons for Leaving Last Housing, All Participants
- Lost or reduced income: 12%
- Conflict among residents: 9%
- Didn't want to impose/wanted own space: 7%
- Conflict with property owner: 7%
- Someone else became sick, disabled, or died: 6%
- Building was sold or foreclosed: 6%
- Violence or abuse in the household: 5%
- Breakup between residents: 4%
- Participant's substance use: 4%
- Other needed more space: 4%
and also:
To understand what participants believed may have prevented their homelessness, we asked them to engage in a thought experiment about the likelihood that their homelessness could have been prevented had they received financial intervention. We provided all participants with three different scenarios and asked them whether each intervention would have prevented their becoming homeless for at least two years.29 The interventions were: (1) a monthly rental subsidy worth $300-$500; (2) a one-time payment of $5,000 to $10,000; or, (3) a voucher that limits rent contribution to 30% of their income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher).
FIGURE 21 Participant Report of Effect of Hypothetical Homelessness Prevention Interventions by Family Structure
All
- $300-$500/month shallow subsidy: 70%
- $5,000-$10,000 one-time payment: 82%
- Housing voucher: 90%
So while "not enough money" might not have been the most common cause for people being homeless, the vast majority of people think having more money or cheaper housing would have prevented them from becoming homeless.
It wasn't me that said that, and that's not what they said.
Edit: I should really refresh the page if I'm going to spend so long reading the sources.
Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one's chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. Source
The prevalence of mental illness and substance use among those experiencing homelessness is clear, but Kushel cautions that the vast majority of mental illness among the study participants is anxiety and depression. It’s likely the lack of resources exacerbates those conditions, rather than the illness causing the homelessness, she says.
“I think that the driving issue is clearly the deep poverty, that the median [monthly] household income for everyone in the household in the six months before homelessness was $960, in a state with the highest housing costs in the country,” she says. Other studies have noted that the end of pandemic stimulus payments and rising inflation has led to rents outpacing wages. The study notes that in 2023, California had only 24 units of affordable housing available for every 100 extremely low-income households.Source
Just because you know one or two people that were homeless and also had problems with addiction, doesn't mean the addiction caused their homelessness.
As far as I can tell, you're right, I haven't seen anything about the wikileaks servers. Maybe Peaty was thinking about how Assange heavily implied he got documents from a murdered Democratic party employee when he really got them from a Russian intelligence agency.
I think the problem is mostly with how neo-liberals tend to try to balance the budget
Since when has youtube had text/image posts? How do you even get to them? Are they a mobile only feature?
The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.
Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.
You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to lie about what the page says. I'll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?
You're just making stuff up.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.
Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.
There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.
You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn't be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn't be allowed (sleep is important).
There’s tons of evidence which shows that they are essentially harmless to others if smoked outdoors.
Care to show some of that evidence? Because the EPA and NCBI seem to disagree with you.
That’s why preventing people from getting sleep matters, but smoking outdoors does not.
But you used someone being loud and obnoxious and waking you up at 6am on a Saturday as an example of something that should explicitly be allowed.
as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.
But you're not being consistent about what "significantly harmful" even means. Loud noises apparently counts, but only if you want it to. Air pollution doesn't, even if you think it should.
Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere?
To be fair, they specifically said "smoking just smells bad and is really unpleasant to be around in the street", so presumably they only really care about the ban when it's near other people and would be enforceable in the first place. So if no one's around, do what you want, but near other people you shouldn't smoke. That goes along rather neatly with your 'personal freedoms so long as there isn't harmful to others.'
It hasn't happened yet, so we don't know the exact legal justification for why it should or shouldn't be allowed. This is a lawsuit to remove Trump's name from the ballots.
- Courts have disqualified officials under the Fourteenth Amendment who played far less substantial roles in insurrections, and who, like Trump, did not personally commit violent acts. This includes Couy Griffin, a former New Mexico county commissioner who was a grassroots mobilizer, inciter, and member of Trump’s mob on January 6th (but did not commit violent acts or breach the Capitol building), and Kenneth Worthy, who served as a sheriff in a Confederate state (but did not take up arms in the Confederate army).7 If these individuals’ conduct warranted Section 3 disqualification, then surely Trump’s does as well.
- Since January 6, 2021, Trump has publicly affirmed his disloyalty to the Constitution and his allegiance to the insurrectionists who seized the Capitol for him. He has called the insurrectionists “patriots,”8 vowed to give many “full pardons with an apology” if he becomes President again,9 financially supported them,10 released a song with a choir of convicted January 6th defendants called “Justice for All,”11 and hugged on camera a convicted January 6th defendant who has said that Pence and Members of Congress who voted to certify Biden’s victory should be executed for treason.12
Without going through the whole legal document, there seems to be a fairly good reason for why Trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president, and removing his name from the primary elections would be one step towards that.
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can't decide that the air pollution isn't? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say "you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society"?
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Because there's more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn't happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn't really a solution.
One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not ... extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down)
I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference here. And why is it you don't see polluting the air to be a direct health risk? If you wanted to ride a bike or walk instead of drive everywhere, I'm sure you'd see how car exhaust doesn't just disappear immediately.
The Kickstarter page puts it at 450g, which seems to be fairly good compared to the first tire I googled's ~600g.
Harry’s whole life and the plot.
Oh, well you see, the bad things that happen to Harry are depicted as bad by the book, whereas the slavery of the house elves is depicted as a good thing, or at least how things should be. The characters don't just shrug off someone's death and say "they'd be happy to have died for the cause," but they do say "house elves are happy to work, so we shouldn't end their slavery." That's the problematic part, and what makes it worse and worth talking about.
No, you see that because it’s what you want to see. She’s nuts but not pro slavery, and I think thats obvious to most readers.
She's very pro- house elf slavery. I don't know how you're reading the book (or just the wiki page in this case) and coming to another conclusion. The person trying to free them is seen as ridiculous, every character besides her thinks she's a hopeless idealist who doesn't know how the world works for wanting to end slavery, and even the main character sides more with the "why is she so upset about this" side than "we should end slavery".
I do find it interesting that creatures being themselves is more problematic than all of the murder, torture, abuse and pain the characters experience.
I don't even know what you're referring to here. Are you thinking that the abuse the house elves are subjected to is not as bad as them "wanting" to be enslaved?
as long as the story gives something to think about, im happy with it.
I'm not convinced. You don't seem to really want to think about the story. We're shown, very clearly, that at least some of the elves want to be free, but the very next time they're brought up we're told "no, elves were born to be slaves. Slavery is their natural state, don't question it or try to change anything," which just might be more indicative of the author injecting her worldview than a good point about respecting others' cultures.
In conclusion: im a white male slave apologist and i should be cancelled. oh and i probably support trump too. i must be really dumb and brainwashed if i enjoy a book about wizards with a character named “Cho Chang” or whatever else is in your videos.
Your persecution fetish is showing.
I do not. The previous study of its kind from the IMO was from 2014 and looked at the years 2007-2012, so it seems to take a few years for them to be able to put all the information together.