Ron DeSantis isn't a lemmy mod, to my knowledge.
CarbonIceDragon
joined 2 years ago
Sure, but if unforested land is artificially forested, or deforested land is reforested faster than would occur naturally, or human activity causes an increase in plant cover unintentionally (for example, if increased carbon dioxide spurs in increase in plant growth beyond the previous norm), then the photosynthesis done by those extra plants would be caused by humans, surely?
The eggs have gone back to 5 bucks a dozen where I'm at, at least in the store I was last in. Still haven't bothered getting any recently, but they're not at like, 8 or 9 like they were at the same store a month or two ago. Not sure if that's a change in the bird flu situation or if they've just been pushed down with some kind of subsidy or something.
I don't really get why this source first emphasizes that carbon molecules have an effect regardless of source, but then says that it is wrong for humans to "take credit" for photosynthesis. If something, human caused or otherwise causes an increase in plant cover such as to cause an increase in carbon stored in plant biomass, the atmosphere doesn't care if humans did that or if plants did.
Is there a context for "sociopath"? like, would a person that actually had that mental condition be disallowed from commenting, or was it saying that you had called someone else a sociopath and that isnt allowed?
Literally any time I see United Airlines branding, I immediately get "United breaks guitars" stuck in my head.
To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn't support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren't harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.
Does the rule in question even apply to end users? All I had heard of it was that it put some kind of requirement on the website itself to identify people, which a person seeking out a noncompliant or foreign website presumably wouldn't be the one violating?
Isn't Bowser more of a turtle?
Roko's Basilisk is just pascal's wager but with AI.
why does it need to choose bodies?
Technically not, since a lack of intelligence doesn't necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong (else an unintelligent person could make things more likely to be wrong by saying something, or would be unable to say that thing if it is true.)