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.
Yeah… bird smashers… say, do you have a cat?
Kann man nix machen
Ein Verbot wurde Parteienfinanzierung und Platform entziehen. Parteivermögen wird eingezogen, vll Immunitäten aufgehoben. Die müssen sich mit Gerichtsverfahren rumschlagen. Etc.
Hey, no need to apologize for anything 🙃 yeah, that phrase is a quote ire st least kind of a meme.
Quellen? Und von wem gekauft? Zumindest die Sachen die ich gelesen habe, die Marcel Fratscher so sagt finde ich nicht so verkehrt. Aber lasse mich gerne eines besseren belehren. Was genau ist schlecht an denen?
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…
Ich bin persönlich auch pro Glas, auch wenn die Umweltbilanz aktuell noch schlechter ist. Glas kann man einschmelzen und wenn der Strom dafür irgendwann 100% regenerativ ist, ists gut. Auch den Transport kann man regenerativ machen. Plastik wird auf lange Sicht weiter aus Öl sein und bleibt in seiner Form oder Mikroplastik laaaaange im System. Da fang ich doch lieber jetzt schon eine Glaswirtschaft aufzubauen mit Sicht auf die zukünftige Stromerzeugung.
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
Problem is: who is in charge to write down the thing that is being voted for. E.g. “we need to protect the children” will get my yes vote. However, that is very unspecific and the specific thing could be “we are scanning every text message and sent file on every of your devices to compare that with child sexual abuse images as we need to protect the children”. I wouldn’t vote for that. So, whoever can frame the question that is beeing asked still directs what is happening.
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.
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
How many of you actually did read the name? It’s papakangahorohoro road. That’s not toooo hard to remember. I already did. papa-kanga + 2x horo. It’s not like it’s eyjafjallajökull or something like that.
DNA testing that Russian investigators will do in Russia. And as we all know, they are trustworthy as fuck
I like to disagree. There are other ways than to continue that pyramid scheme (which you do state as the “only way”). We could work on getting rid of “unnecessary stuff” and focus with the workers we have on the necessary. E.g. Traveling via plane or cruise ship or buying a new phone every year, a bigger tv every two and gigantic cars could be stopped. Let’s keep phones for 7 years, make vacation in our own region, country, by train, share cars. That could free a lot of working hours used to manufacture that stuff to put into the more needed professions like infrastructure maintenance and care work. Will that happen? I don’t think so…
Jup, Fairphone. Enough phone for anything you need to do. Repairable and fair. Best thing
I support this proposal