volodymyr @ volodymyr @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

59

Joined

2 yr. ago

If we are talking about giving an example, while I agree in part, I also find there are people more popular and influential than billonaires. Half of the top 10 richest people are not really public personas at least from where I stand. Conversely, you do not need to be billionaire to produce 10000x CO2, you need some money but not that much. These people need to be also in attention focus. Even just middle upper class who like to fly a lot, the difference it makes is huge. Billionaires do their own part, but through ownership of large companies and their relation to customers, I think is more important way in which they make a difference.

How about stopping other individual from doing some things? Else this strategy is self-defeating, those survive who will not follow it. Writing a comment about it actually counts for conviencing others, but should this fact be one of the points?

At least in Europe it's ok, golfstream will shut down and we'll be under a glacier. Climate change is not just warming, it's volatility.

hey, but how far does your backyard go? Don't you feel at least for your city, your country? Why not something bigger?

Most companies do not optimize to exist long term. Another, longer lasting, entity needs to take charge of this. Like humanity itself, except it needs some organization, reflecting legitimate consenus. The problem is that it needs to be enforcable, and world govenment with punitive powers is not an unproblematic idea.

I think one big problem is that Earth has become too small, but this fact and it's implications did not quite get absorbed. People act on in instinctively by favoring space exploration, but it's pursued by most adventurous ones, and not in unproblematic ways.

Companies sell to people though, who willingly buy from them unsustainable products. But I think it's a bit much to expect people make this choice every day, I prefer at least for some things make a regulation. It's like "normal" pollution, we do not expect people to figure out which company relies on less toxic leakage, why is CO2 pollution any different?

Hate to be devils advocate here, but even if billionaires contribute 1000x each, there is just one of them for 1000x1000x1000x1000x people so in total their contribution does not matter. What matters is their business choices which favor unsustainable practies for billions of people, so eventually they have a huge effect, just not directly.

I can not object to fact that the war not good, but the impact on emissions is not so simple. There was a decrease in all kinds of activities in Ukraine, reducing consumption. Also a lot less fossil fuels are burned, and solar power is found to be more resilent to attacks due to it's distributed nature. However, I suspect, overall it is still bad for the climate change.

There are real conspiracies but conspirstorial mindset is still unhealthly. There is a joke "even if you do have paranoia, it does not mean that THEY are not actually watching you". It's just important not do descend into paranoia, even if it starts by legitimate concerns. It's also important to be aware that one person can not derive all knowledge for by themselves, so it is necessary to trust, even conditionally. But right now, there is no established technical process helping to choose how to trust. I just belive that most people in here are not bots and not crazy.

People still tap into real world while AI does not do that yet. Once AI will be able to actively learn from realworld sensors, the problem might disappear, no?

I don't think it's possible to always assume you can be misled, the influences remain even when they are not noticed. Also it is not advisable to be too suspicious, this breeds conspiratorial mindset. This is a dark side of critical thinking. Information space is already loaded with trash, and AI is about to amplify it. I think we need personal identity management, and AI agents will have their identities too. The danger is that this is hard to do in free internet. But it is possible in part, there are technologies.

Glaciers are just flowing and retreating in summer. That is the major reason some stuff reappears this time of year. Also there is slower process due to climate change of course.

Freedom of information should be a human right, it allows to build consensus crucial for social cohesion. A bit like open access in academia, which is getting more traction recently. But unless this right is guaranteed stealing from authors destroys knowledge industry as such. Except that maybe it helps to transform predatory business models.

Yeah, the whole idea of open web democratizing knowledge empowers similarly learning of people and learning of AI. For the same reasons. Blocking and fragmenting this powerful space is reactionary, I think ownership of AI is a bigger issue.

That's most of their business model, what would motivate them to do something else?

they might just go pure wireless too to avoid USB-C. Not sure how the are going to do with the battery, but there will be some trick.

I am a bit surprised about the diversity of opinions. For me, well organized muscle movement, both cardio and weightlifting, is quite enjoyable simply physiologically. Plus other things like resting the mind, enjoying the scenere, etc.

While it is true, there are also some factors which make people converge on some platforms. Factors beyond simply presence of other people. Like technical features.

I thought this is an example where standards in part converged naturally. But I agree that regulation was fundamental part of this process.

Phone and laptop chargers converged from numerous standards to just a few all on their own I think, no?