Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MM
Posts
0
Comments
11
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Cut that 1% by prohibiting most polluting activities of these people, would cut at maximum 16% of global emission, as stated in the article. As that's a one-time move, emissions will continue to grow, it will just give some month at best.

  • Monthly fee for everyone or you mean freemium? Freemium in my opinion wont be enough to cover the cost, because works well only with services with low cost per-user. And monthly fee for everyone is a very hight incentive of not using YouTube.

  • I already know Searxng but never tried extensively, I might give a serious try

    I've used duckduckgo but I remember was really slow loading results 🤔

    For brave search, I've never took it seriously, I should try also this if you say results are good. But how they found themselves?

  • You need a schedulable power source if you want to fully replace carbon. A lot of batteries with super high capacity (that may exists in the future) could stabilize solar enough, and a lot of solar arrays may give enough power, but in summers you you will be forced to throw away some of the energy, which is a big waste. And this is an hypothetical scenario, nuclear is a technology that already exists, we could have decarbonised decades ago using nuclear. -> Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we should rely on nuclear power alone, but we should first cover the base energy load with nuclear, then use solar and wind for the rest