Yeah, I think they know that basically the refugees are going to be met with a military (maybe that’s why the fear of refugees is brewing), but I think the thing they don’t really understand is that those billions actually make all the things they / we use. At some point the 1% societies get to “peak buying power” and nothing will ever cause it to go up, wages be damned.
Also, we need those wages / taxes for the military they’re counting on.
Do you get this uneasy feeling that people know? Like they know they aren’t in that 2/3 and that they are kind of racist enough that they sort of want that 2/3 gone? Like people call it “complacency” among the 1% nations but I just got this feeling sometimes.
Sure. But they still have to dock. If you tax it in half the countries, they will still have to pay half the time.
They need diesel to run. Tax the diesel. Right now fossil fuels get subsidies. Just change that.
I really think these companies should try and split the men’s and women’s preferences for taste tests. There is a strong idea of meat and cheese being tied to manhood, and I have a suspicion that while men might prefer the taste, even in a blind test, they would lie about it to avoid being thought of as a “soy boy”. I really do think the new age of fake meats is less about taste, and more about identity.
EDIT: I will say though, for cheese the gap is real. Personally very happy these companies are closing it, because I’d buy it.
Also isn’t that pig making products out of other pigs?
My guess is this is the underlying reason. Basically these companies set up the infrastructure for when governments would start to mandate this stuff, and they’d get a bit of nice press out of it. However, the fossil companies have found that you can basically confound all progress by the private sector just via the threat of rolling back climate legislation. This happened when the LNP government even just mentioned a nuclear plan which is just plain stupid.
I’m guessing by even stating it, Air NZ has gone one better than a lot of companies, which have conveniently “forgotten” about their goals. They’ll get 20% of the way and declare that a success, but basically one company can’t move until all of them move. We need to get the crazies out of government and out of opposition too.
Food is so deep, culturally speaking. Many people have deep memories and positive associations with making meat dishes, and “forcing” plant based meats looks like the government intruding on that. It feels overbearing for a government to try and reduce eating of meat through any monetary means, even if it just means reducing / removing subsidies already in place.
It’s doubly worse because splitting meat eating through money means the rich can still afford and eat meat in plentiful ways, where the poor won’t be able to. This makes meat a wealth signifier (more than it already is), which can backfire pretty spectacularly.
In a policy sense, I actually have no idea how to limit meat eating. Even Carbon Taxes tend to have exceptions for beef.
In Australia, houses just have eaves.
So, I’m lucky enough to have built a house, and earthworks are expensive. A hobbit hole would cost as much as the house we live in, without the actual building, just the hole.
10 deadliest animals to humans
Was watching a YT video against this idea. Basically the occupancy is quite low per dollar, and generally there’s not much expertise in building them. This means the city/state is tied to one company which can ream them price-wise. If you need the occupancy, get a train.
“we just grind that shit up till it’s microscopic and inject it straight into your balls. Bingo Bango! No more plastic waste…o”
There’s no evidence that self driving can be better. It’s purely faith.
Drivers are not horrible, rather horrible drivers can get a license. Treating cars as a right makes that worse. Self driving makes that worse.
I think it’s worth thinking about this in a technical sense, not just in a political or capitalist sense: Yes, car companies want self driving cars, but self driving cars are immensely dangerous, and there’s no evidence that self driving cars will make roads safer. As such, legislation should be pushing very hard to stop self driving cars.
Also, the same technology used for self driving is used for AEB. This actually makes self-driving more likely, in that the car companies have to pay for all that equipment anyway, they may as well try and shoehorn in self driving. On top of this, I have no confidence that the odds of an error in the system (eg: a dirty sensor, software getting confused) is not higher than the odds of a system correctly braking when it needs to.
This means someone can get into a situation where they are:
This is unacceptable on its face. Yes, cars are dangerous, yes we need to make them safer, but we should use better policies like slower speeds, safer roads, and transitioning to smaller lighter weight cars, not this AI automation bullshit.
I love Lemmy. I often come in here thinking about the downsides of an article and it’s usually the top voted comment. Contrast with the… other… site… where the top comment is probably racist posted by a bot.
Eat is a big one. Then wear, because it’s part of your identity. Drive is somehow easier even though many might notice that it’s not at all easy.
So I have been asking myself why I held some of my beliefs, and the answer is that I “learnt” them at a really young age, maybe 4-10 years old. It was an age where I basically knew “nothing” and I guess I filed it away for clarification later and that “later” never came. All of a sudden I’m much, much older and asking myself why I even believe this strange thing and the answer is “they got me when I was young”. If I wasn’t exposed to other thinkers who asked me to re-evaluate my ideas, I might never have questioned them.
I’m just using it as a space heater for my study, which is also where I work from. While using the computer in Winter I just switch on f@h for both CPU and GPU (AMD 5700x and 6700xt), and this heats up the room. It’s a good 300-400W. I have home assistant telling me the temperature in the room and it bugs me to turn it off if it’s too hot. That’s my “temperature control”. I didn’t build anything, the computer is just under my desk and it heats up my room.
Originally my plan was to have F@H automatically turn on and off based on temperature, but it turns out the power is low enough and the lag is high enough that you switch it on in the morning, and then once the room is upto temperature you can just switch it off and the room will stay warm the rest of the day.
OK here’s my Anarchist “Hot take”. It’s not correct, but I’m building an oversimplified model to make what’s happening somewhat visible. Let’s divide people up into two groups: One group has “experts”, who are pretty alone / introverted, but doesn’t really do the work of meeting up with others. The other group has people who know how to gather a party together, through a bbq or cookout or family meals or an actual party, but aren’t too bright.
In the past, both groups were kind of homogenised together, to the extent that neither group really knew the existence of the other, but they knew how to make things “work”. Like the experts didn’t know how the cookouts happened, but they just needed to turn up, and enjoy the party. The rest was more or less magic. The other group knew the effort to bring people together, but didn’t realise that some of those people were more valuable than the others. The actual dissemination of expertise was more or less magic.
Today, we have social media. The cookouts happen in social-media spaces, but what’s happened is that the experts and the non-experts have split (sort of like the milk we’re talking about here). The experts can “meet” without the party people, and the party people “meet” with the other party people. In the past, the experts would naturally become the trusted members of society because people would know them over the years being right over and over. Today, however, the experts are effectively in a different world to the party people, who are all vying for a “trusted position”. This is valuable, because the party people are “gullible” – I don’t mean this in a negative sense, just that they must trust the expertise around them, the social proof, or the consensus. Repeating that this used to work because actual experts used to be among them.
So you have people like Alex Jones, who is a snake oil salesman. In the past, a niece or nephew might have been able to tell their family not to listen to Alex Jones, and that would have worked. However, that’s no longer effective because Jones has unadulterated, prime position straight to the party people’s brain sockets through talking for hours at end about this crazy stuff. The nephew is also not at enough of the cookouts to counteract that. This pushes the family apart (we’ve seen this narrative now, people who are so far in the alt-right pipeline they can’t back out) and allows Jones and co to completely wreck these people’s lives.
So in short, I don’t think this is a consensus reality thing. I think it’s a filter bubble thing. We’ve managed to make it easy enough to filter things we don’t want to hear, and to not work with people who don’t agree with us. Oh and don’t think the “experts” are in a better position here. They fundamentally can’t organise a party. They don’t know how.