I may have stated it slightly too strongly but this is wild speculation on Hansen’s part. Show me a published prediction.

Even if what he said was accurate, burning that much fossil energy is almost certainly impossible.

But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.

If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.

Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.

There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.

The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-30999-3

It does depend somewhat on the specifics but for the vast majority of cases EVs are just better.

They’re still bad mind you, it’s just that ICE vehicles are so much worse.

Edit: This one might be a bit more directly applicable: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

There around 1000 life cycle cost analyses that disprove this idea by now. It takes only a few years of driving electric to pay off the carbon debt from manufacturing, assuming average driving behavior.

Of course, this is complicated because we should be dramatically reducing driving. But for most people it does not make sense to keep a gas car as a daily driver.

Damn that seems like a core feature. Not sure I’ll use it without this.

Doesn’t seem to work on any of the UI’s I use, strangely.

Sure I’d be happy to assist.

I agree with your points and general philosophy, but I guess I the flaw I was trying to address is that good users can post bad content and vice versa. So moderation strategies that can make decisions based on individual comments might be better than just banning individuals that on average we don’t like.

This would require a totally different approach, and I don’t think your tool necessarily needs to solve every problem, but it’s worth pondering.

I was thinking of taking over [email protected] but since @Quercus wants to take that on, I could also take [email protected]. I do listen to a lot of those as well.

But I still can’t figure out how to tag users after a year on here.

Very interesting idea. Glad you decided to make it transparent since I don’t think it will work otherwise.

I am not sure I think it will work as intended—in my opinion the state of political discourse on Lemmy is pretty bad right now, but that may reflect the broader state of politics in society more than our particular platform. If we want to create a truly positive space for political discussion, it might require more intervention than banning a small fraction of users. To use myself as an example, I try to be pleasant and constructive but I know I don’t always succeed. An analysis based on the content of comments could also be interesting to try. Or a kind of intermediate status of user, where comments require mod approval. That could be overly dependent on subjective mod opinions though.

Still, I think even if it doesn’t work, this is the type of experiment we need to elevate online discourse beyond the muck we see today.

Yeah I do enjoy him but he’s definitely got a different vibe. Much more satirical.

So all of these answers have some truth to them, but they are also missing a key factor. The heritage foundation exists because they are paid tons of money by billionaires to sit around and come up with ways to strengthen their dominance over society. The left simply doesn’t have many supporters with that level of wealth. While it’s possible to do this on a voluntary basis it’s a lot harder than getting paid to do it.

Yeah you’re right, I probably stated it over-broadly. I’m more talking about the typical prehistoric human diet but there were exceptions.

Right, that’s what I mean. Agricultural societies were likely better organized and more populous and so better able to defend and expel rivals from their lands. Foragers were forced into increasingly marginal lands over time, and all forager societies today exist on land that is essentially unsuited for agriculture, which is the only reason they have survived to this day.

Lots of people called for Trump to step down in 2016 but I think most intelligent people have lost all faith in the Republican Party. For that to be heeded, it would have to be raised by voices within the party, and Trump’s vicious attacks against his critics make that very unlikely.

That said, yeah it should have been at least discussed after his felony conviction I think.

Oh interesting. I was told by someone once that you want to set your radius smaller which seemed counterintuitive but this explains why.

I paired up before online dating was really a thing but I’m always curious about this strange world I never experienced.

Since there’s no written record, it’s hard to know for sure but I believe it was because agricultural communities were able to reproduce much faster and live at much higher densities, so they tended to win conflicts and displace societies based on foraging—even though foragers had better quality of life and didn’t normally experience the food shortages people imagine.

That said, modern foraging societies have largely converted to agriculture after being subjugated and not because they were hungry. So there is some evidence to support this hypothesis.

To a greater or lesser extent. Trump more or less completely refused to answer the one about climate change. Everyone is talking about Biden but that was also a stand out moment for me.

That’s a tough one. There’s no obvious moral calculus to translate between lives lost and quality of life.

I tend to think drafting is similar to slavery—it’s a grave violation of basic human rights and should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances where the alternative is clearly worse.

It might depend on the exact nature of the authoritarian regime. Or maybe I’m just not comfortable with either outcome and so I don’t want to answer the question.