"In some ways, you could represent the whole idea of modern human society with a light bulb turning on above our heads. Few technologies have been as critical to shaping the world as we know it."
My biggest gripe with Mastodon is just how bad their thread support is. With Twitter, it's easily noticeable which reply belongs to which chain, Mastodon just flattens everything.
My biggest gripe is that it is just like twitter: there's no HTML page with text or images. There's only a javascript application to run. For twitter I could use a nitter mirror. For mastadon... I just close that tab because there's no way to avoid executing the javascript that I'm aware of. Does anyone know of a way?
Perhaps the implication is that it's poor form to publicly announce you understand How Things Work so you should use a more neutral handle like SoyLord66 or DankM3mer - same reason nerdctl is a worse Docker.
Honestly, if you remove the ton of supplements he takes for dubious reason, only look at the meal and realise you can probably substitute some of the most expensive ingredients for similar but cheaper ones, it's just a fairly sane vegan diet: protein rich beans and grains, steamed greens, mushrooms, olive oil, fatty nuts.
Yeah that was my thought too when skimming over it ... A lot of it is just whole plant-based foods, and 90% of people will probably get all the benefit from just that, leaving aside all the supplements.
The one thing I think is good is the variety of ingredients/produce, and that can be fairly expensive (but probably not as expensive as what they're charging). You can do it cheaply if you live near a market, and have multiple people with a similar diet
There’s absolutely no way to compute the price of the damage that every ton of CO2 is going to do, so whatever value you choose is going to be arbitrary and ultimately unfair.
What’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a positive number adjustable based on large scale statistics does a hell of a lot more to fix market incentives than pricing it at a constant $0 and banning one specific thing (in a way which can’t even be enforced) as a political gimmick.
And why would you price it at $0 if it's already known it does cause damages. Just because you can't fairly price it doesn't mean it costs zero, that's an absurd logic...
A fair minimum tax is one that ensures we stay below catastrophic per-capita emissions, as estimated by the IPCC, created exactly for understanding climate change.
Why I have to believe this report when I do not see even accurate weather forecasts one week ahead in many cases?
I really think that the possibility of obtaining the wrong conclusions are much higher than getting it right, yet the consequences of putting a ton of restrictions is really harmful for many people, especially in developing countries.
Regarding weather and climate: Those aren't the same thing.
Maybe you could compare it to dice. It's very hard to predict on what number a dice is going to land. But if you throw it a lot of times, you'll eventually start to see the distribution converge somewhere. And when you then take a drill and make a hole in the side of the dice, or glue something to its side or whatever, and then throw it a lot of times again, you'll see that the distribution changes. Also, you can make reasonable statements about those developments. "If I make it heavier on the side opposite six, I think I'll start seeing more sixes, because the side opposite is pulled down more by gravity".
You don't need to be able to predict the short-term outputs of a system to see changes in its long-term trends, and you can absolutely reason about and possibly predict those long-term changes.
Maybe you are right guys, Idk. But I am skeptical, not of the change in the climate. That is a fact. But of the whole set of things (full model) that provokes it.
I think it is a really difficult thing to guess. And anyways, even if it is not, how can you stop it if China, India and US say no to it bc there is no current technology to replace?
We could be in the situation where a lot of restrictions are set and later the guess is wrong. More expensive energy means putting a ton of people back into poverty, literally.
Why do I have to believe my math teacher when he says he knows the distribution of rolling a pair of dice 1000 times when he cannot even predict the next roll of the dice?
