Jansemon

If a material is under stress, is it also being anthropomorphized?

Also, it's an ecosystem, as everything is more or less connected. Insects, plants, mammals, water. Do you really think, that billions of people dying will do this without consequences for the rest of the world? Do you think YOU will be part of the few, who still might've a normal life, after everything is upended?

Everybody who's looking at this scientifically, is of different opinion than both of you. Lots of people, over decades. The chances that they are incorrect and you are correct, are rather miniscule.

Also, if it DOESN'T happen as science predicts, what would we have lost? The monumental investments and changes would still have a positive impact (remember the cited OECD study). If we do nothing and science is right, we're in a massive world of trouble. I do not understand, why betting on the latter is the better option than just doing something.

What do you mean, "nowhere does it say that things get worse overall"? Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress (to say it mildly) and failing!?

Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact?

And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?

And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place.

Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.

Power consumption?

They provide webpages (forms) where you can insert your info and they'll unblock your ip...

I am always reading and never experiencing this (knockonwood).

I'm self hosting email servers for multiple domains for now nearly 25 years. When moving to a new hoster with new IP addresses (especially Hetzner, as it is cheaper and seems to attract more malicious people), I have to contact Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and one or two other big providers to clear my IP address range. This has to be done only once and usually is resolved within hours (faster for automated sites). The bigger ones have a web page to do this, others can be reached via email and are always replying quite quickly. So after a day, everything works and once it works, this never changes and mail gets accepted.

These servers are being used by multiple users and businesses and none have reported any problems. For decades.

I am only using dedicated servers though and using everything in the book: DNSSEC, DMARC, SPF, DKIM, proper DNS records, TLS with valid certs and a correctly behaving SMTP server...

No, this seems to be false. France is importing electricity for years from Germany - at least since 2015.

I'm not sure why you're saying that France only has an issue because of Germany? Where do you get that from? Even a french power grid operator is saying that they import more power from Germany, than they're exporting (https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...).

But you're not even responding to my main concern - that nuclear power is so expensive, that it is never competitive. Only when subsidized. And that is for power plants that are already built - not new ones (which seem to be an even greater money pit). Why is the biggest nuclear power company unable to make money in France and needs to be rescued by the government?

I'd say if it makes sense and helps us in our current situation, just subsidize the heck out of it, even if it costs us as a country lots of money. But it absolutely doesn't seem environmentally friendly, not even regarding CO2. And it doesn't seem to be feasible to quickly build nuclear power.

But yes, Germany fucked up regarding its dependency on gas (from one source and then it's even from a country like Russia).

Yeah, and aren't like have the plants currently not working, either because it's to hot or they're in maintenance or it's too expensive to repair them? And EDF, the biggest company behind nuclear power generation has huge amounts of debt and needs (is?) to be nationalized?

From what I can gather, nuclear power was never cheap. It seems no country calculates the real cost - everything's subsidized to be even competitive. In Germany, after the power companies reaped the profits, they said they need to be subsidized to dismantle them, as the costs were to high.

The waste disposal seems to be also subsidized (be it that the state searches for locations and builds them?) or

Building those new and plants seems to be a gigantic money pit - look at the UK. Didn't they surpass the 30 billion mark and no end in sight? And that they can't be built fast?

And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod?

Everybody points to France as the poster boy for nuclear power. But it seems that it is a total disaster.

Unfortunatley in German, but can maybe translated:

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-08/deutschland-fran...

> Kids aren't at risk.

Well, the Delta variant seems to be changing that.

What about all the surgeons that perform multi hour long surgeries then?

But how can they now that? I've got a German domain and denic doesn't list the registration date - only the last update...

Absolutely no problem if you set up your server correctly.

Where is the consent of users that are being tracked outside of Facebook and are not part of it?

I don't understand why nobody is talking about the even bigger issue that Facebook (and Google and every other ad service) gets to see what people are visiting and when (articles, videos, porn, ...)!

Imagine the detailed profiles you can create with that amount of data...

It is unfortunately true that e-mail is mostly centralized (as in even if I don't want to use GMail & Co., I will mostly communicate with people on those bign centralized platforms, thus giving them again my data).

But it is absolutely federated - I have the choice of running my own server and can communicate with every other e-mail address on this planet.

Unfortunately, it isn't easy to setup - average Joe has no chance to get his own server. On the other hand, for IT people it isn't extremely hard either. Once setup, it is nearly maintenance free...

I'm running my (and a company) e-mail server since 2001 and I don't want to miss it. I only once had a problem with being blocked by big sites, after moving to a new server where the IP range has gotten on some blacklists, because of the previous owner. Also never a problem with spam filters.

I hope e-mail will never be replaced - or at least there's some new way of communicating federated where every internet user is reachable.

The bigger problem is unwillingly sending them even more private information than participating on their sites. Sending a referer and a cookie with every ad (or like button) delivered is far more intrusive. Or isn't that how it works?

How can breaks not stop the engine?! Parking break being a different thing, but the main ones?

Quality journalism here - his name is Urs Hoelzle.