And what is when X decides to ban an account you are interested in? You can’t do anything against it. In your mastodon you could still read it on that instance. Or maybe there is a client where you can add two accounts and show content of both? And do you think X or Bluesky does not cooperate with law enforcement and gives data if the US government wants it?

I support this proposal

Probably. I still find a lot of people here on Lemmy (and the other fuck you spez platform before) that are very very convinced we need to reroute a substantial amount of our effort into building nuclear reactors as renewables can never ever sustain everything and in general there is no storage.

But you are right in general.

People will always find a reason to smash their heads, however they call it. All hail to the Allied Atheist Alliance my fellow 🦦

2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.

Also there is a chance that birds killed by cats windturbines were already weak and soon to die.

Don’t take the above sentence seriously. It’s just to show that arguments that seem nice might not hold their value at second glance.

In comparison with the other issues we have, the bird Windturbine one is a non-issue. However, it gets thrown in the ring over and over again, achieving exactly what the people persuing it want: distraction. It’s the same with nuclear, it’s the same with “ but we can’t store the energy“. A lot of decoys to slow down the process while we already have everything we need to take on the problem. Please people, don’t take the bait, focus on implementing the solution.

Uhm… 2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.

Yeah… bird smashers… say, do you have a cat?

Iirc correctly the monkey cats ( or however they are called ) actually just prefer a specific coffee plant that is more rarely used as the ones used for the vast amount of coffee in the world ( e.g. robusta or arabica). However, if the beans of this variation are used directly, it tastes exactly the same. There is a scientific paper about this. Long story short: people are drinking shat out coffee for no good reason. What is even worse, it is tried to hold these monkey cats in cages to produce more of this coffee. Again for no good reason. But people fall for the marketing pr gang that the coffee is handpicked by those animals, digested and shat out and they would not go for “yeah we need just to use another plant” because it wouldn’t be so exklusive anymore…

Hey, no need to apologize for anything 🙃 yeah, that phrase is a quote ire st least kind of a meme.

Also don’t forget about survivorship bias. We don’t know how many percent of their buildings are still standing. Probably only the really really good build ones. Also never forget, any idiot can build a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to built one that barely stands. And that is often what we are doing today. Making our stuff “good enough” as otherwise it wouldn’t be economic feasible in the short or midterm. I am still curious how good it would be if we would instead aim for the long-term though…

You mean 2-3 trips per week, right? Maybe with kids it gets one per day or every two days? laughs in 100 percent homeoffice

Wasn’t the tire thing to stop the contour matching so that the drones can’t see/find their target?

We proooooibably could do that if everyone agrees and we all do it together everywhere of the world. Will that happen? No. So we can not agree on that and therefore no big nuclear Masterplan will be build.

Let’s say we also try to get everyone on the full renewable boat, try really hard. Will that work so that everybody agrees? No. So as we can not agree on that no renewables will be built. Wait… Stop… That’s wrong. I still can built renewables even alone on my house. And here is the difference. For the nuclear plan we would almost all all over the world have to agree to make it work. For renewables, it will happen, because we can do it right here right now, everywhere, large scale, small scale. Doesn’t matter. It’s like with gravity and religion. For religion to “work” you need to believe. Gravity will work, if you believe it or not. That’s what gives me at least a little bit hope, renewables are so fucking good, they are unstoppable by now. Question is just if we are fast enough.

How about a mixture of batteries (redox-flow, LiFePo, NaFePO, iron-air, Li-Ion), thermal storage (porous volcanic stone, heated water, liquid salt), mechanical storage (giant rotating masses, compressed air), pumped hydroelectrical storage, power-to-gas or power to liquid(hydrogen or ammonia) and creating interconnected power grids?

That should do. Would not create a single point of failure and prevent having everything in the hands of probably a single entity.

Exactly this. There was some good coverage in the German podcast Logbuch Netzpolitik. Ashton is also involved in companies selling software to “solve” the CSAM issue with methods the scientific community says will not solve it and most likely will make everything worse, not only in the topic but also others like privacy overall.

I am on my third usb-module on my phone. Luckily it is replaceable. I would really like the concept of sticking a . in a o (as it is with lightning) than to have an . in a O and fiddling a o between both (as in USB-C). I have never lost a cable through wear and tear so far though…

Idk, I would not go with “I am a doctor so I deserve money with which I can live a live that seems so unhinged to the median income earner that I not only can allow to have a big car with which probably only one human at a time is driving, no, I also have a plane whith which probably only me is flaying at once and I have access to my own airfield”. They would still be on my menu right after the billionaires

Uh… from an economic point you just can’t split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can’t sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.

This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.