Don't have the money to actually help house and assist such people, but have the money for the resources to round them up and put them in facilities. Hmmm.
Rhaedas
joined 1 year ago
It's a good idea, since Lemmy and the rest are being searched through by Google and others. However one of the things often discussed is how hard it is to find things on the search engines that have been pulled from Lemmy, so we're not quite seen yet as a database resource for AI and such. But again, better to start now, as Fediverse places are being mentioned more and more by the mainstream.
The question is, how best to do this, and which data? Just personal, or try to obscure anything you submit in discussion?
They definitely are other places as well to varying degrees. Some of it is just human nature and how our brains are wired to feed the ego when we believe we're "right", otherwise we wouldn't have a history of constant disagreement, war, etc. over stupid stuff. The fundamentals of street epistemology is useful for any topic, from politics to religion to pseudosciences. It's even helpful as self-validation, which will show how hard is can be to question your own beliefs, and maybe help understand how others can get caught up in thinking a certain way without actually thinking about it.
The problems with CO2 traps aside from them emitting yet more CO2 (every bit counts) is that it's something you have to constantly resupply, most of the CO2 is wasted because of how it works, wind can affect its performance, and it uses energy, so isn't all that passive. Attacking the larvae stage in various ways is a better method. And of course reducing or eliminating any standing water where they can breed, although there are species that use damp soil.
Street Epistemology. The reason it works better is because it avoids confronting the person with a conflicting viewpoint and setting their defenses up. Instead the interest of what and why they think something is true lets them try to justify it, and (sometimes) that digging by themselves leads to a reevaluation. Even if it doesn't work the first time, it can plant a seed of doubt about their world view that they didn't have before (because they didn't think too much about the WHY).
If that route is taken and they're okay with the lack of validation of their own thoughts, there is nothing you can say to them to break out of that. They're fine with the lack of facts, so how can facts change anything? As the saying goes, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into", however like I said, you can give them something that might cause a break over time if you help them start a crack. But only they can do that.
I haven't seen any news yet on a cause, but honestly with this last week my first thought was that Elon put Grok in charge of the network infrastructure, and well...Grok went oops. And then like any good LLM, lied about what happened.
There are probably things created in supernova explosions that we couldn't think about creating due to the energy required, but like our manmade ones, they decay very quickly so we'd never know of their existence. So as far as stability, the periodic chart is probably pretty much complete.
Clearly the manager either isn't involving themselves with projecting food production needs, or is very bad at it. Either way, this is on the manager if there is so much waste. How the hell do you do other food management like ordering and inventory if you're just letting people make whatever they feel is the right amount? Do your job. This kills the idea that employees will make too much in order to take something home, and lets you let them take extra home. Win-win for everyone. And if taking a few cookies home kills your business, once again you're a bad food manager.
They're right. Greenhouse gases don't endanger people. In fact, life would be difficult without greenhouse gases present.
It's the production of an overabundance of greenhouse gases that's the problem. Humans started the imbalance, nature is adding to it as things warm up. Nature will do what it will do, it's up to us to get leadership that understands a head in the sand doesn't change anything.
I think with a few changes it would be a better movie. Less screaming, a bit of a different ending and who survives. There's some good parts though. I've seen people complain that the one scene with the birds is convenient and forced to make Cruise's character important, but the soldiers were busy trying to get people out of the place and wouldn't have necessarily noticed what he did. Note that once they understood, they took action. Also RIP the one guy who almost made it.
They're already sending Jordan Peterson, that's quite a bit.
Oops, sorry, misread that as "shit".
GOP is all about free market, right? So let the free market decide who wants a model that gives out information that is weighted in one direction or another. If you want accuracy, you aren't going to buy into a model that skews things in a different direction. Oh right, they only talk about free market when it works in their best interests...