A lot of science around trees and forest management has gone this way. Forest used to be seen as competitive areas that needed to be thoroughly managed to be healthy. Now we know that’s not true at all, and overall would be better off if we just let them be (in most, though not all cases). Same with the idea that trees communicate with each other and share resources. This was dismissed and ridiculed for a long time, but has now been pretty resoundingly proven true. Peter Wohlleben’s The Secret Life of Trees talks a lot about this.

The pilot on my plane a few years back was named Max Power

Musk’s wealth went up in 2020. So did several other billionaires. The ultra wealthy don’t obey the same rules you and I do, and they’re still making billions when the world is shit.

It’s impressive that every part of this is wrong!

Exactly! And disputing it in this way just adds credence to the argument. Failing to rejection the premicr wholesale gives tacit approval that sometimes it might be the case, and sets us up to keep having to respond like this, rather than saying any argument centered on DEI is bullshit.

This. In a case around LinkedIn courts ruled that in the US it’s legal to scrape publicly available data. The company doing the scraping was selling that data to corporate customers, but ultimately use might depend on the information you’re accessing and under what permissions. (Not a lawyer)

Happened Yesterday At Eielsen Air Force Base. According to the article, the pilot was ok but the plane suffered “significant structural damage”…yeah, I’d say so.

That F35 cost taxpayers around $100M!

Same! And most of that’s just rent!

I like the Bourne Ultimatum theory better. We peaked there and will never achieve that high again!

Seems unlikely since it was posted by the guy who took the picture.

SLAPP, SLAPP, SLAPP

I visited Molossia a while ago, dude was awesome and super friendly. Plus the weather in Molossia is always perfect, although with the close borders with Nevada sometimes the bad weather from the US bleeds in.

Yup, several companies have near-monopolies on microchips at different levels (Intel for CPU, NVidia for GPUs, TSMC for manufacturing) but not really TI. They used to, but pretty much lost it now.

Well that is a fascinating and bizarre definition.

Where are you? Most US conservatives use socialism as the bogeyman and practically a swear word.

This would be true, except for the fact that nuclear is terrible at filling in slack times. Nuclear power for the most part needs to run really consistently, 24/7. Better to fill gaps with a diversity of reasources, more transmission, and storage.

Basically no one outside of china is advocating for coal use anymore, so this is a BS comparison. The much more apt comparison is against wind, solar, and storage, against which nuclear is far more dangerous. Also, it’s hard for environmental damage assessment to take into account the EXTREMELY long-lived impacts of fuel “disposal”.

Archived version

The wrong wiki is linked, but here is the right one if anyone is interested! Wiki:Lemmy

Edit: nevermind, wrong article is linking because of a bug in Lemmy.

Looked at your profile, you’re in Mexico? Ultimately the question you need to ask yourself is how your political decisions (voting or not voting) impacting others. Like someone else said, if you live in society with others there is no such thing as “not being political”, every action has consequences.

If you want to support a conservative politician who is harming other people from a community you identify with, you need to know that’s what you’re doing and that it has an impact. If you don’t vote to oppose a candidate who harms you community, you also need to be aware of that and recognize that you had a part in making it happen.

Do what you want and identify how you will, but regardless it’s probably going to impact others, positively or negatively.

Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies! But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.