mister_monster @ mister_monster @monero.town

46zFAv8KHaKVuYDTJ15TXAah6SCXw88Dx9UhTuUJa6ydb8m9uGLaYE3AX5JPFhsJjJ6w7NMc7vN

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

478

Joined

2 yr. ago

No.

Yeah, most people just assume you don't believe in climate change if you disagree with any part of the narrative, it's cult like. I believe in climate change, fossil fuels cause it and all that stuff, but I have to reassure people of that every time I talk about this because I don't just not my head when the topic comes up, I try to think about it critically.

So I love IPFS, I love the idea of it. I think it's great.

But try integrating it into a project and see what happens. Here is a fun example. Development of IPFS is unfortunately a disorganized mess.

I'd love to build an application that loads resources from IPFS, such as a library specifically for books that stores an index of books, like libgen, or uncensorable front ends for smart contracts and things, but IPFS integration is sub par. The situation all round just sucks.

potential. Do you even understand what you're citing? There are graphs in the article if words are hard. Do you know what radiative forcing is? You should read about it.

Just no huh.

The article you link shows carbon dioxide having a stronger impact on warming than methane in aggregate, which is what I'm talking about and what matters.

While most people want to believe their traits are innate, the fact is Rome wouldn't have been able to function the way it did if this were true. The existence of Rome and its sex as an institution empirically disproves the hypothesis.

I'm sure there were some men in Rome that were disgusted by the prospect of sex with men and either did it anyway as a duty or found every excuse not to, and I'm sure there were men that salivated at the idea from an early age. But by and large most of the men's sexuality was malleable. This is certainly also the case today, there are probably some people strongly predisposed to one or the other from birth, but for most people sexuality is largely conditioning.

I just responded to this here https://monero.town/comment/1195582

Methane has a half life of 8 years, and is produced from carbon dioxide and water, specifically it is produced into carbohydrates by plants which are then broken down into methane by certain bacteria in animal digestive systems. It degrades back into carbon dioxide and water through oxidization very quickly in the atmosphere. It's effect on global warming is miniscule compared to carbon dioxide, by measure of the volume of each produced and their persistence in the atmosphere. Methane is a non issue, and is easily made up for by the fact that cows, and the humans that eat them, are carbon sinks also. Imagine if you stopped cattle production and destroyed all those cattle to stop them from creating methane, how much carbon dioxide do you think they'd create as they biodegrade? This would have a significant impact on warming, way way more than the methane does. The existence of cattle (and any and all biomass in general since they're all carbon sinks) is a net positive for warming, by far.

You're missing something: it's all a bunch of bullshit. So in a sense it's hopeless, but you've got to ask yourself why even existing makes it hopeless? Because the feeling of hopelessness you get is a lie. Someone wants you to feel like nothing is ever enough.

I'm not saying fossil fuels are not releasing CO2 and all that, I'm not a denier. My point is only that these new ideas about your carbon footprint, that come from eating food and breathing, are absolutely ridiculous bullshit. Carbon in the carbon cycle already does not contribute to your footprint. It's a lie to make you guilty when you didn't do anything. Youre being gaslit.

The only carbon that counts towards your carbon footprint are 1) fossil fuels that you consume, 2) plastics from fossil fuels that you dispose of (they may not be atmospheric carbon now, but they'll inevitably end up in the carbon cycle) and 3) your economic choices that lead to the destruction of natural carbon sinks, such as buying palm oil or products that contain it, Brazilian beef raised on torched amazon land, etc. You should not be concerned whatsoever about breathing and eating meat if your concern is carbon output.

Breathing does not create Carbon, it is only transformed.

Yet somehow when cows do it this is not the case.

Your premise is that the only carbon that's new is from fossil fuels, which I can agree with (to a point; it came from biomass originally so is not truly new, just reintegrated after a billion years) but the problem is your view, the view we had for a few decades until very recently, is not the most common view. People talk about carbon in biomass going through the carbon cycle as if it's a bad thing now, and you get called a fucking denier of all things if you point out that that is ridiculous.

Printing money.

I use torrents-csv https://torrents-csv.ml/ and find the movie I want and download it. I'm like you, I hardly watch movies, this is the most seamless way for me to do it.

Well, I think the government at the core has a small point, network effects drive these sites, and the news being there draws people to them, which draws news to be there. But they frame it as one sided, and the fact is the news benefits from being on Facebook way more than Facebook benefits from people sharing news. People are on Facebook, the news is irrelevant if people can't share it with each other in their lives, but Facebook doesnt become irrelevant without it. The government stepped out of line here and are doing anything and everything in their power to avoid admitting it, even resorting to propaganda. This is a shakedown for a failing industry that the government needs to continue to exist for it to control public narrative, that's tye long and short of it.

Personally I'm of the opinion that all news is propaganda, and so I consume none of it. The fact that every news organization is parroting the government line about Facebook being a meanie and blocking the news tells me who controls the news and/or where power lies. If something's important enough for me to need to know it, someone in my life will tell me. So I'd disagree with you that this needs a solution.

I do like your other long term solution, I don't use Facebook either.

It's a spiral, you have to do something or it will get worse. Go eat a piece of fruit, take the seed, and sprout it, grow it big enough and then put it in the ground somewhere. That should take you a couple of years. One day, some people are going to stumble upon an out of place fruit tree, they're going to wonder about the person that put it there and they're going to eat from it and it will nourish them. If you can't come up with the motivation, then just do it because I said so.

One of my philosophical axioms is I do not want to be remembered by name. I only want the impact I've had on the world to be my memory as it ripples through time. Doesn't have to be big... Raising good kids, planting a single tree, or it could be big. But everyone can't do big things, so take what you can, try to do something impactful in some way as often as you can, something that's in your nature to do.

Lol they didn't "ban" news, they refused to pay to make the news relevant. Canada basically banned news sharing on the internet. They can repeal the stupid law.

I would drive the shit out of that car

What happened to telling governments to go fuck themselves? I remember when it was on the governments to police their citizens and if software violated their laws it was on the government to stop citizens accessing it. Why can they just not comply?