" hey Mr Spidey trying to help you here here go go go no no no no no no I was trying to help you get out of the car not stay in well" the hazards of using voice recognition -- sometimes you have to do something else in the middle of a post LMAO
"Vote for us or it's dangerous to our democracy" is the new "Vote for us or the terrorists win"
I think a thing to keep in mind is that in canada, a lot of places have already been at 100% renewables for longer than you've been alive. Manitoba, quebec, newfoundland, and for the most part British Columbia are all near 100% renewables. This isn't a pie in the sky dream, it's something very doable because it's already been done. All we have to do is do the thing that we've already done a bit more.
Even in ontario, I live in a region whose electricity is 90% hydroelectric.
Which brings us to another thing that really the politicians who are pretending they really care about this aren't going to touch with 100 ft pole -- why exactly are we taking people from the lowest carbon use jurisdictions on the planet and shipping them to the highest carbon use jurisdiction on the planet? You take people who are living in areas where you don't need electricity to survive, and you move to a place where if you don't have energy for travel and energy for getting your home then you die. The least sustainable places in Canada would be the places with all of the migrants, Toronto and vancouver. Why did we bring all these people in? It's not good for the planet. Here we see proof of my ongoing point laid bare: if you ask these politicians why we need to be importing people like this, they'll give you all kinds of stories about how good it is for the economy.
Even in ontario, I live in a region whose electricity is 90% hydroelectric.
Which brings us to another thing that really the politicians who are pretending they really care about this aren't going to touch with 100 ft pole -- why exactly are we taking people from the lowest carbon use jurisdictions on the planet and shipping them to the highest carbon use jurisdiction on the planet? You take people who are living in areas where you don't need electricity to survive, and you move to a place where if you don't have energy for travel and energy for getting your home then you die. The least sustainable places in Canada would be the places with all of the migrants, Toronto and vancouver. Why did we bring all these people in? It's not good for the planet. Here we see proof of my ongoing point laid bare: if you ask these politicians why we need to be importing people like this, they'll give you all kinds of stories about how good it is for the economy.
I don't think we need to use nuclear in Ontario, tbh. We're reliant on it because of NIMBY policies which set it up years ago not to use any of the extensive geography in Ontario to build renewables.
Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all have nearly 100% renewable electricity generation, but it was almost all infrastructure built before the current age of "no".
That's what's so insane about the whole thing, just imagine -- entire provinces larger than most countries in Europe have been 100% renewable longer than you or I have been alive. All day, everyday, the lights, the heat, the cooling, much of the industry. It's canada, it's a place so huge that you can't even wrap your head around it, there's so much geography that of course we could build more hydro dams, but we just don't.
I've got the same problem with nuclear that I do with steel -- the amount of resources that go into extracting and refining this stuff is on a scale that most human beings can't imagine. You can have a giant tank of propane that would be for a distribution facility in many places, and burn through it in a single day just to keep mine air heaters running, and even in places that brag about how they don't use any fossil fuels in their mining, they're lying and they still use fossil fuels on their mine air heaters. And then there's travel -- most mines today are flying fly out to reduce the environmental footprint, and that means that almost every single day there are hundreds of people flying long plane rides for remote locations. You think your morning commute burns a lot of fuel? It's got nothing on a mine in nunuvut. And that's just two examples, it's just one thing after another after another, the environmental footprint of mining is just so astronomical.
But the thing is, this is the environmental industrial complex. A known good solution to a problem that can be more or less immediately implemented and then the problem is solved isn't helpful for anyone in this equation other than the Earth and the consumer. A few people make a little bit of money maintaining a hydroelectric dam, but a lot of people make a lot of money if you're raping the Earth to dig up uranium and coal and steel! Man, there's money to be made by everyone then! Especially if you need to invent something that's perpetually 5 to 10 years off! Oh the amount of money in perpetually having something that's just 5 to 10 years off? I mean you can leech off of that grift for centuries.
Of course not everywhere is as blessed as canada, but some places are. Canada is, for example(go figure!). But again -- especially when the technology to fix things has been known for over a century, and we could actually implement the fixes immediately and start getting environmental and social benefits immediately. But we don't, because for politicians what good at that solvable problem? For crony capitalists, what good is a few low margin megaprojects when there's fortunes to be made? Nobody stands to get rich and powerful that way.
Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, and Newfoundland all have nearly 100% renewable electricity generation, but it was almost all infrastructure built before the current age of "no".
That's what's so insane about the whole thing, just imagine -- entire provinces larger than most countries in Europe have been 100% renewable longer than you or I have been alive. All day, everyday, the lights, the heat, the cooling, much of the industry. It's canada, it's a place so huge that you can't even wrap your head around it, there's so much geography that of course we could build more hydro dams, but we just don't.
I've got the same problem with nuclear that I do with steel -- the amount of resources that go into extracting and refining this stuff is on a scale that most human beings can't imagine. You can have a giant tank of propane that would be for a distribution facility in many places, and burn through it in a single day just to keep mine air heaters running, and even in places that brag about how they don't use any fossil fuels in their mining, they're lying and they still use fossil fuels on their mine air heaters. And then there's travel -- most mines today are flying fly out to reduce the environmental footprint, and that means that almost every single day there are hundreds of people flying long plane rides for remote locations. You think your morning commute burns a lot of fuel? It's got nothing on a mine in nunuvut. And that's just two examples, it's just one thing after another after another, the environmental footprint of mining is just so astronomical.
But the thing is, this is the environmental industrial complex. A known good solution to a problem that can be more or less immediately implemented and then the problem is solved isn't helpful for anyone in this equation other than the Earth and the consumer. A few people make a little bit of money maintaining a hydroelectric dam, but a lot of people make a lot of money if you're raping the Earth to dig up uranium and coal and steel! Man, there's money to be made by everyone then! Especially if you need to invent something that's perpetually 5 to 10 years off! Oh the amount of money in perpetually having something that's just 5 to 10 years off? I mean you can leech off of that grift for centuries.
Of course not everywhere is as blessed as canada, but some places are. Canada is, for example(go figure!). But again -- especially when the technology to fix things has been known for over a century, and we could actually implement the fixes immediately and start getting environmental and social benefits immediately. But we don't, because for politicians what good at that solvable problem? For crony capitalists, what good is a few low margin megaprojects when there's fortunes to be made? Nobody stands to get rich and powerful that way.
"We destroyed an entire generation's future, but now we need a federal standard to make sure all generations are destroyed forever!"
The advertising industry started advertising cigarettes to women as liberty torches around the late 20s, the numbers I saw were 1928/1929. By that time, the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote was almost 10 years old, it was already a safe standpoint on an issue that had been won. As for multiracial couples, miscegenation laws were wiped out in the 1960s and even symbolically the laws that were unenforceable had been struck from the books by 2000, it isn't particularly controversial today either.
Government propaganda is a different beast mind you, and it's scary how quickly they can use their unlimited money to change people's minds on big stuff. Big difference between trying to get you to buy something and still be profitable and taking half your pay and using it to convince you of bullshit...
Government propaganda is a different beast mind you, and it's scary how quickly they can use their unlimited money to change people's minds on big stuff. Big difference between trying to get you to buy something and still be profitable and taking half your pay and using it to convince you of bullshit...
Just imagine. New Yorkers are the most highly taxed people in America, and their tax dollars are going to teaching this.
I guess you reap what you sow...
I guess you reap what you sow...
Terry O'Reilly is an ad man who has continuously run a show on CBC radio for decades, starting with O'Reilly on advertising, followed by age of persuasion, and now under the influence.
I remember listening to his show and he had some episodes that explained 2 things:
1. Advertising is conservative. Not politically conservative, but conservative in that it plays things very safe, and usually is the last one to the party on any given trend. They may have gone all-in on stuff like multiracial families and gay imagery, but only once it seemed like society had already long accepted it.
2. Marketers ended up getting some very strong signals around 2008 that the entire society was turning progressive and they should too. There were a couple of studies that ended up showing first that something like 70% of millennials were progressive, and second that something like 70% of people claimed that they would pay a premium for a brand that is seen as supporting causes, regardless of what those causes were.
So in that sense, the relatively recent failure of wokeness is something they're responding to in record time.
One thing everyone on every side needs to remember is that brands don't give a fuck about your cause. They're just trying to sell their products, and if coopting your thing will help them do that they will, and they'll happily use your cause up like a tissue and toss it away once it's no longer useful.
I remember listening to his show and he had some episodes that explained 2 things:
1. Advertising is conservative. Not politically conservative, but conservative in that it plays things very safe, and usually is the last one to the party on any given trend. They may have gone all-in on stuff like multiracial families and gay imagery, but only once it seemed like society had already long accepted it.
2. Marketers ended up getting some very strong signals around 2008 that the entire society was turning progressive and they should too. There were a couple of studies that ended up showing first that something like 70% of millennials were progressive, and second that something like 70% of people claimed that they would pay a premium for a brand that is seen as supporting causes, regardless of what those causes were.
So in that sense, the relatively recent failure of wokeness is something they're responding to in record time.
One thing everyone on every side needs to remember is that brands don't give a fuck about your cause. They're just trying to sell their products, and if coopting your thing will help them do that they will, and they'll happily use your cause up like a tissue and toss it away once it's no longer useful.
Barb the unbuilder -- can she fix it?
Barb the unbuilder -- drop that zero and getchaself a hero!
Barb the unbuilder -- drop that zero and getchaself a hero!
Interesting linguistic history on bears, the word "bear" isn't even the original word for bear. Its etymology is essentially "the thing we aren't even going to name right now" because people were scared that if you said the name of the thing that you might get a scary bear coming in tearing up your shit. The original name of a bear was closer to the latin ursus or greek word arktos, but it was called "the brown one" as a euphemism. Many northern european cultures made similar euphemisms.
Bears, particularly grizzly bears, are dangerous.
Bears, particularly grizzly bears, are dangerous.
Seems to me that any one of them could be self-serving or selfless.
It's like asking "what color is a car?" -- cars can be lots of colors.
It's like asking "what color is a car?" -- cars can be lots of colors.
I really want to build a little metal widget to melt together the new filament to the old filament to avoid situations like this.
Yeah, exactly. You can say some pretty ruthless words but some intonation and body language can make it perfectly clear you're not trying to be angry or malicious, whereas in text you have to try to express what you're saying, and for example if you were just giving someone a friendly reminder, you can hear someone being friendly but often "just a friendly reminder" comes off either being used in and ironic sense for a not so friendly reminder, or generally just have a little bit more malice to it then the writer likely intended.
It's one reason why sometimes it takes me 3 days to compose an email that I could have done over the phone or in person in 30 seconds, sitting there trying to figure out exactly the best way to express a tone that would just come naturally.
It's one reason why sometimes it takes me 3 days to compose an email that I could have done over the phone or in person in 30 seconds, sitting there trying to figure out exactly the best way to express a tone that would just come naturally.
Unfortunately I don't really have a choice in the matter. I was talking about how things are rather than how things should be.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
I ended up reading up about it a few years back while doing research for a post on the fediverse, and I was pretty surprised at it as well. The thing is, sometimes it is the only option, but it's the sort of thing that you do after years and years of trying every other thing.
At this point it should just be assumed they're always out to get you and steal everything you have and if you can live in a FOSS ecosystem you should.
I wonder if zoomers or gen alpha know who that is?
It'd be kind of weird considering the guy as I think dead of old age now.
It'd be kind of weird considering the guy as I think dead of old age now.