zalgotext @ zalgotext @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,221

Joined

2 yr. ago

1. They're not really having a meltdown
2. Meat is frequently bought in single meal/single serving amounts, whereas milk is frequently bought in bulk/multiple-serving amounts. Storing milk is a bigger deal than storing meat, because you much more frequently have leftover milk than leftover raw meat. The two aren't really comparable.

On the bright side, if H5N1 kills off all its hosts, it'll effectively eradicate itself

Not with that attitude

You're right, that is specific

"Spilling seed" is a sin...

First off, I've never read the Bible, so apologies for any ignorance I'm about to display.

Second, how literal are we talking here? Like, do backshots count as "spilling seed"? What if she's a spitter, is she doomed to eternal damnation? Is hot creampie sex the only legal sex, according to the Bible?

Red/white gingham referencing park sex plus mosquito netting referencing outdoor sex has got me rolling

Hey look, it's the inspiration for Hank Hill's body proportions

the only way for a truly democratic country to allow the citizens to choose themselves whether or not the war should continue.

So you're saying that if the Ukrainian citizenry simply votes to stop the war, Russia will stop shelling their homes?

It's like half and half. Some is contracted out, but there are definitely active duty service members doing cyber security work as well.

There are certainly tech focused positions in any modern military, but yeah, the front lines are probably not the best place for a software developer with probably no military training.

Brother, a huge chunk of people outside of Europe can't do things like choose cleaner energy sources, choose to use public transportation, choose to live car free, choose to eat local produce, or choose to do any of those things in the articles you listed, because those choices do not exist for them. I don't have access to local produce except a few weekends in the summer. My city doesn't have functional public transportation. My apartment doesn't let me choose where I get my energy from, and even if it did, there probably wouldn't be a clean energy option in my state. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more coal power plants were being built, due to lobbying and politicians that I voted against. Don't you see how it's frustrating when you say that these individual actions need to be the focus when it's impossible for a ton of people to take those actions?

I'm saying that giving millions of these people a pass because a billionaire is worse isn't helpful

I'm not giving them a pass. I do my part, and I encourage others to do theirs. It's billionaires who are getting a pass. There's next to no consequence for large scale damage to the environment, if you're rich enough.

and expecting these folks to magically work towards sustainable collective action when they spend their entire lives living the opposite of sustainability is simply not going to work.

I one hundred percent agree, it's a tall task to get that undereducated, uncaring group to think about the environment.

What is a shorter task, is passing taxes, policies, and other financial incentives to make billionaires pay for the damage they're doing. Which in all likelihood, will come in the form of not offering all those horribly irresponsible products. Kills two birds with one stone.

If both sides switched positions the lower class people would go for exactly the same fun as the elite is having right know.

Then it seems to me that the real problem is the capacity for damage that being a billionaire grants you, not the people involved. Maybe we need to start looking at ways to limit the damage billionaires can do, instead of focusing so hard on changing the behavior of the masses.

Purging a couple of assholes and replacing them with fresh soon-to-be assholes won't solve this

I'm not suggesting a purge, I'm suggesting we change the behavior of the billionaire class. That can be achieved with taxes, policy, and financial incentives just as easily as with violence (probably easier tbh).

Our mindset needs to change.

Dawg, we've been trying to change the mindset since (at least*) the 90s, and it's just not enough. You and I can reuse our sustainably sourced reusable hemp shopping bags all we want, reduce our consumption all we want, recycle all we want, it doesn't change the fact that Kroger is shipping in produce from half a planet away on a daily basis. We need to go further, and make the upper class take their share of responsibility for the damage they do to the environment.

We need to agree on what is enough and what's obscene.

Agreeing on what's enough is hard, but agreeing on what's obscene is much much easier, and I think it's safe to say that nearly every billionaire in the world exceeds what we can agree is obscene. That's a much easier problem to solve, one we have the tools to solve now. Let's tackle that first, while we work through the harder problem of figuring out what's enough.

People aren't blindly consuming though, they're consuming mostly as a necessity, without much choice in the impact of what they consume. Us down here at the bottom of the class hierarchy don't have a lot of wiggle room. In general, the lower and middle classes much more rarely consume for pleasure, but even still, why shouldn't I get to take a plane for vacation once or twice a year, sucking the farts of the 300 other peasants in the economy class seats, while CEOs take single-passenger trips in their private jets every day? Do you see how that's frustrating? My footprint is already incredibly low because on top of just not consuming all that much in the first place (compared to a billionaire), I do try to be as responsible as I reasonably can. Billionaires aren't even trying.

I think the big point is, it would be magnitudes easier to get the 100 richest people to lower their carbon footprint than the 1 billion poorest (do you understand how monstrously difficult it is to convince 1 billion, or even 1 million people to work towards some common goal?), and it would probably have a bigger impact on the environment to boot. I'm getting tired of people continuing to advocate for individual action when actions by billionaires would be so much more impactful, for so much less sacrifice on their part. Work smarter, not harder, you know?

Obviously, the best solution is to do both, to tackle the problem from both sides. But in my personal opinion, I think we should start with the billionaires and see where that gets us first. They owe us at least that much.

Yup, and Microsoft just takes copies of those files by default. The legality of which is dubious at best.

Like my code, it's ugly but readable

This isn't about protecting your IP. This is about the incredibly shaky legal ground Microsoft is standing on by making it the default to slurp up all your files.

That experience is highly dependent on the Linux distro you're using. Steam comes preinstalled on gaming-centric distros like Nobara or Pop!_OS. More "general purpose" distros like Mint or Ubuntu might require adding an apt repository before you can install steam from their GUI package managers, but adding an apt repo can be easily accomplished with a GUI as well.

Basically, if there's no guide for installing steam for a given distro, or the process of installing steam is more than a couple easy steps, that specific distro probably isn't well suited to run steam.

IDK why you're being downvoted, you're totally right. For this to be closer to a fair comparison, we'd need to know the averages for both countries over the same time period.

Let's make the last 40 years our time window. China has dropped zero bombs in that period, making their average zero bombs dropped per day.

Now for the US, they've certainly dropped some bombs in the last 40 years. So that would make their average... Greater than zero bombs dropped per day... Oh...

Nice, thanks for the advice! That's super helpful for me, and hopefully anyone else that comes across this thread