ternnoburn

Fresh water is finite. Infinite in reuse, but we can only take so much from a river before that river ceases to be. If you have a megabit connection, it doesn't matter that your cloud backups have infinite storage, you are limited by bandwidth.

Water vapor stays aloft for wild, so there's no guarantee it enters the same watershed it was drawn from.

It's also a powerful greenhouse gas, so even though it's removed quickly, raising the rate we produce it results in more insulation.

It's not a finite resource, we need to be judicious and wise in how we allocate it.

Your mistake is assuming I'm thinking about any sort of legal definition. Adversarial nature doesn't require or government to declare it for it to exist.

Do you think the first lab produced ammonia was also made at current hourly production rates?

Alternatively, you are looking at a scale model and asking, "what is this, a school for ants?!"

Maybe we should learn to do things in a new way then spend a few decades rolling them out?

Yes? There's already a cottage industry trying to do exactly that?

The problem is getting enough co2, as it's not particularly concentrated in our atmosphere. So the main ways they go about it are big fans, which is tons of energy, capturing at the source (in smokestacks, etc) which requires complex transport and management, or growing plants and pyrolysing the biomass.

The fundamental theory behind it is quite simple, it's really more of a logistics problem.

By all accounts, RedNote is hugely gay, with many people talking about how it's full of gay Chinese folks looking to connect with people.

I wish it were a reckoning for social media, but reading here shows there's plenty of people here who are passionate about "China bad" and see this only through that one lens. And they seem to think it is strictly about TikTok.

It seems pretty bold to assume that Google, Facebook, Amazon, X, etc aren't adversaries. Foreign or otherwise.

IMO, there are too few entrants to meaningfully draw any conclusions about "the norm" in this industry.

I don't think you realize just how extensively abuse can break your brain.

Edit: I'm talking about emotional and psychological abuse. Separating you from people who care for you, gaslighting you, building dependency, etc are all scamming tactics that are absolutely psychological and emotional abuse.

"This" -- do you mean theft and abuse are the reasons why? Or debilitating illness (HIV/Cancer).

Nor a moron.

Solitary people who are groomed and love bombed aren't idiots, they are victims. Abuse of this type works so often because people have weakened defenses due to other events in their life. We're hard wired as a species to value social cohesion and social approvals.

You could work a $500k/year job and safe $350k a year. Or a $400k and save $250k. A $1.5M/year job is a wild overestimate of what's required.

Nah, bad.

Karl Marx talked about alienation -- we are alienated from our work, we are alienated from one another, and eventually alienated from our humanity.

I disagree with Marx about a lot of things, but I do think that this theory makes a lot of sense. As we become increasingly mechanistic in our work, we feel less agency. Less control. Less attachment to the work. We stop caring about the product.

You can pay people to care, for agile, but ultimately the alienation wins. The solution? I'm not sure! Probably several possible things, not least of which is probably work that's focused on building one's community and helping meet their needs.

Reading this, it feels much more like "using coding skills to make income". It's a great description of one person's journey, but "work hard for a decade, continue to work at a healthy lighter pace after" isn't really passive income in my mind.

And I'm not sure it beats, e.g., work hard and save hard at tech company for a decade, then use the invested surplus as passive income to work lightly thereafter. At least, not in the general case.

Capital claims the rewards. Company gets twice as productive, there's no reason to pay workers more unless they organize to demand it. So the bosses keep more and more of the surplus.

American workers are starting to develop class consciousness and realize who is doing the work (the workers) and who is getting paid (the bosses).

As bosses continue to treat workers worse and worse, the more we're starting to go, "wait a second, all this culture war bullshit it's just a distraction meant to keep us from banding together."

If Paul Graham published his list of favorite la croix flavors, would it be interesting because of who he is?

I don't understand celebrity worship in the slightest -- if a celebrity says something, why does that make it valuable to listen? Especially if it's poorly written drivel.

You are avoiding the question.

And of course I'd make the same argument for Andrew Tate. Budweiser hiring Tate isn't "promoting his ideology". Because Budweiser has no ideology beyond "we think this makes us money". They chose Dylan because they thought "this makes us money", if they chose Tate it would be because they thought it makes them money. In neither case would they be promoting their actors ideologies. They are a boring mega corp, their one ideology is "sell beer".

Does that apply to every actor bud hires? If that actor says something personal on their feed, bud is promoting their ideology?

Tom Cruise did ads for bud, is Budweiser promoting Scientology?

If not, walk me through why one is promoting ideology and the other isn't.

My friend, I am a leftist. I guarantee you no one hates leftists more than leftists.

We fight each other to death over everything.

What's intellectually interesting here? This article is mindless pap you could get anywhere online with some quick searching for anti woke. I don't mind political content if it's saying something novel, but this.... there's nothing here.

Did they promote "trans ideology"? Did the ad say anything about trans principles?

Or did it just have a trans person in it?

Because if you are saying employing trans people is woke, that's pretty messed up.

It's much more than that. If the government says, "only land owners can publish", regardless of content, that's still obviously censorship. In what world would "only Christians may publish" not be censorship?

The execution is part of the art of it, like, there's a statement being made about the Internet, anonymity, and humanity here. It may not be what the artist originally set out to create with their art, which I find fascinating.

It's not leftist dogma. Leftists aren't capitalists, friend. Hard to argue the government and economy are post capitalist.

And most leftists I know absolutely hate performative progressivism. Dems are widely mocked in leftist circles for doing stunts but not doing anything to help. Like Pelosi wearing Kente cloth while doing nothing to aid African people.

So please, you might actually have people who agree with you in the leftist camp, stop bundling us with the Dems.

Seeing his posts here, it would appear that his behavior is indeed "as bad as it seems". A serial poster who cannot seem to disengage, took everything personally, and refused to try to understand other perspectives.

Your position is really "fuck disabled people", really?

Your ever seen a blind person try to use the internet? You ever seen a person with essential tremors try to use their phone?

Go and educate yourself a little.

These standards are all built from the experiences of users who were unable to access things and they benefit way more than the 15% of people who have disabilities. Ever used closed captioning, automatic doors, or curb cuts? Those things all started as accessibility features.

I was articulating the sorts of things leftists often push for. Nationalizing industry is one such thing - holding industry in common good for the people is one flavor of leftist. You see that in Soviet style communism, for example.

It's not the only way to be leftist. You can be leftist and anti central government, for instance. You cannot, however, be leftist and staunchly capitalist.

Canadian potash corporation, Chilean mining, French financial sector, gazprom in Germany, Indian fossil fuels, railways around the globe, Amtrak here in the U.S.

Many many nations are nationalizing things historically and through today.

Nationalization isn't a litmus test for if you are a leftist though, it's an example of one leftist policy.

In general, the left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the right defends private property and capitalism.