• 45 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Nov 26, 2020


His other videos are much more forward-thinking, it’s true. I have not seen the “strong towns” ones so I’ll have a look later.

The planning of cities is, among other things, tied to the willingness to accommodate huge, wasteful vehicles.

I look at this the other way. If cities were properly designed, people would no longer need SUVs. Right now they need them to feel safe, and it’s okay for people to want to feel safe. If cities were developed a bit more soundly, people would no longer feel this need.

You don’t need to push people out of SUVs by making cities more hostile to them. You just need to make cities less hostile to cycling and buses, and everyone who can will use them. Cities should accommodate everyone, including cyclists and SUV users, whereas right now the accommodate neither.

But I understand the other perspective too, that SUVs are more dangerous and therefore should be banned. But I don’t find the video convincing at all, unless you were already convinced about that before watching.

It’s a very American perspective. By focusing on car design, he is missing out on the important issues.

Nothing in the video matters. If all the SUVs were instantly replaced by Igos, society would still have all the same problems, maybe 10 or 20% smaller. It wouldn’t solve anything.

Focusing on the differences in car design is a distraction from the important changes, which are mostly about city planning. The need for cars (among other things) disappears once city planning is done properly.

Thanks. I have made many feature requests and you always consider them seriously (but usually reject them).

I should do one of those things.

Although there are many flaws, and we do complain, Lemmy is still the best (or least dysfunctional) forum in existence. So yous must be doing something right.

That might not matter. Language is not always a barrier.

And anyway, there is a kit you can learn from people you don’t understand.

I’ve spent too much time explaining currency theory to purple who aren’t really interested. So if you have a specific question I can answer it. But not many questions and not a debate.

IMO it’s an american thing. The society there is obsessed with race.

No matter what the issue is, somehow somebody will make a connection with race. It’s really striking once you listen to enough conversation from there.

The word master has a lot of meanings, but one of them has racial connotations, in a context unrelated to git branches.

Bitcoin should have led to global currency reform, for a start. That failed. It could still lead to energy reform and other important societal progress. But regulation and other factors are killing it.

In general we are open for constructive feedback

My one big fear right now is that a mod could delete my words, and they would be lost forever.

Sometimes I write long essays here. They are ideas that I think are important and original. I write them so people will be able to read them many years into the future.

It’s important that anything deleted by a mod or an admin can be saved by the creator afterwards.

I’d argue it’s necessary that nothing can ever be fully deleted, if you want people to ever write anything important here.

That’s why historically most of the most important world-change essays were written to newspapers. Once a newspaper is published, it is available forever. It can never be expunged.

Are there any plans to improve vim? it is so close to being great. but most of the key mappings are difficult to reach. i understand they made more sense on 50 year old keyboard designs.

it’s missing a couple of great features like pycharm’s “expand context”.

It just needs a few tweaks to be usable.

You got me. I need to adjust the question.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own? (And not just massacring everybody, obviously)

I like your “bully” analogy. Russia’s problem is that it’s a small bully in a world of big bullies. It needs to steal food from smaller children or it will die. But the top tier bullies are afraid it will become a big bully and a threat if it stays healthy. They are stopping it stealing the food so it will die.

Even more accurately, you could say Russia used to be a bully but is now poor and starving. It needs to steal a dock so it can fish. But the top tier bullies…

The internet, but not just north America
I'm bored of just reading about north America. It's interesting but I'm sure equally interesting stuff is happening on all the other continents. Is there a way to internet, just browse for stories and opinions, but filtering out the overwhelming dominant subject. Lemmy was planning a tagging feature for a while. So posters would always tag language and country. So you could chose to only see things pertinent to your language and region. What happened to that? Americans only talk about a few things. And they all think the same way. It was interesting but I know enough about that now. How can I (easily and conveniently) discover what else is there in the world?

Google, Facebook or Microsoft can buy it if this is likely. If can’t buy it they can get it banned.

I’m not here to answer your question (though TBF most of the other commenters didn’t answer it either) but I’d like to ask you about burnout.

I find that in times where there is a lot going on, both at work and at home, I am multi-tasking all day, juggling many so many different urgent jobs that I can’t think about any of them, think about what I am doing now or doing next, or think at all.

When go to bed I have fought many fires, but have accomplished nothing, and still have just and many frustrating jobs waiting for the next day. After several days of this I am continuously anxious and irritable. My mind is a fog.

Is this burnout?

What helps? Writing down all the jobs in a list and going through them sequentially. Just refuse to do anything not urgent or that someone else can do. But any job that takes less than 5 minutes just do immediately without even writing it down.

Taking a 20 minute nap. Sometimes that doesn’t help, so sit alone in a dark room for as long as it takes for the mind to clear.

Prolonged intense exercise helps. So does spending time in a new place. Talking socially with other people. Maybe drugs, but for me neither beer nor spirits help at all.

But these solutions all consume time. So you need to get through all the jobs first. When you reach the end, you have enough free time to do those things. To heal your mind after the burnout.

That’s an interesting interpretation. I’ve never heard it before. Would be interesting to re-read with this in mind.

Everybody interprets Lord of the Flies the same way - as a dilemma between whether people are naturally civilised/cooperative or naturally violent/selfish.

Here is the first link I found, for example. https://bookanalysis.com/william-golding/lord-of-the-flies/themes-analysis/

Your interpretation is radical.

About NET, that’s reassuring to hear. It’s what I already believe. Ubiquitous narrative of people turning savage in an emergency is just cynical propaganda. I’d like to read more evidence to properly test it though, if I come across any.

Reading this, it reminds me why we need the myth that we are savages at heart. Authoritarian rulers tell us that we are savages, and we need them to control us. Look up the words of Macron for example. The idea is of people being naturally violent, society being fragile, held together only by dominant police force and oppressive ruler. They brutalise us only for our own good, because they love us, and we need them. As society starts to move towards democracy, we will see these images fade. They won't be needed any more. We will start to see ourselves as naturally resilient, stronger than our rulers and independent from them.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own?

It’s a test of whether your view is an extreme view or a moderate one.

If the global military were a country, it would be the fourth biggest emitter in the world, ahead of Russia. NATO member states, for example, already spend 17 times as much on the military as Russia. Adding solar panels to a military base is easy to do, but does nothing to tackle the main challenge, which is fossil fuel consumption by military jets, ships and tanks. For now, there is no alternative, green fuel that can be produced at the scale needed and without triggering unacceptable social and environmental consequences

Well the most common and effective way of destroying local cultures, is to force the people to speak the common language.

For example in France, the UK, and many other places, there used to be many local regions, with their own languages and strong local cultures and loyalties. The rulers wanted to kill the local cultures, so that the people would have no local identity. This stops disloyalty or independent thinking or independence movements.

They did this by forcing their subjects to speak a common language.

This policy was perfectly effective.

A province speaking its own language can easily maintain its own identity and push for independence. Without its own language this is more difficult, even if it keeps its own customs.

I think I’ve been too vague. So I can elaborate about these policies in the UK or France, if you like. For other territories (Spain, Italy, etc) I believe the same thing happened but I’m not the expert.

Interesting. After getting more familiar with the French system, I am starting to think the market-based system is the best way. Or at least, it’s a good start. The perfect system in probably fully state run. But it’s so difficult for incompetent governments to create. A good market-based system is easy and quick, and works fine, as an interim solution.

I guess it depends what you mean by “progressive” though?

In paper, the democracies in the world are Ireland, Berlin, Switzerland, California. IMO in practice they are also the most progressive.

I’m not sure they’re really the same question. Be careful of making a false equivalence.

Your questions are very loaded. Most people would answer “there shouldn’t be ANY racism at all!”

In that case, if the questions are really equivalent, everyone’s answer to the original question should be “there shouldn’t be any censorship at all” or maybe “there should be complete censorship for everyone”.

But I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. Therefore the questions are not equivalent. This is too simplistic.

Because you’re taking a very technical rhetorical stance, I’ll try to answer the same way.

Racism is a damaging thing. There’s no good side to it.

Censorship is also a damaging thing. But it can sometimes be a necessary evil to prevent worse evils. There is a sweet spot where it prevents more damage than it causes.

Racism is a natural feature that arises in groups of people, but censorship is a political measure. So if there is a damaging amount of racism in lemmy, censorship can be used to reduce it. While there is no underlying racism problem, then censorship causes its harm while producing no benefit.

These things are hard to measure, so censorship is normally a matter of very careful consideration.

> the research would have sent “extremely” loud shock waves every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day for five months, potentially harming marine species and disrupting their routines.

For example you could only take away 50% of the extra pay

That’s basically what UBI does. It is the optimal solution to that problem.

why should all the other welfare Programms be only viable when you earn no money at all

I didn’t want to complicate the argument by talking about other welfare programs. But maybe I should. I’ll make an edit.

Yes but nobody will tell you your real salary. You have to calculate it yourself. Employers instead tell you your salary before tax, because it looks bigger.

My vision of UBI (continued)
**Section 9 - Practicalities** It would not be such a good idea to, in one day, change society so broadly. So there is a way to do it gradually and cautiously, in stages. Again, there are options: * UBI is just a recalculation of everyone's tax bills and dole payments. For most people their total income will stay about the same. So you can have a transition period where the money to be taken is a weighted average of the old and new calculations. For example: * Each year the dole drops by 50euro, and UBI increases (from 0) by 50euro. The new flat tax goes up (from 0) by 5% each year. After 4 years you have UBI. But at any point you can pause the rates, if there is a bigger economic shock than expected. * It could be done by region. UBI could be first implemented by a small regional government or council, then copied in others. But it might be legally difficult have a different tax system in just one region. It could create its own incentives for large numbers of people to migrate into/out of the region. * You can introduce full UBI for everyone on his 18th birthday. It will be complicated to avoid a drop in the state's tax-income but it can be managed. * You can introduce it by sector. Start with the least controversial and most beneficial. You can stop at any point. Step 1, extend the dole to all workers - this is the only important step. Step 2, to all students. If the benefits are great, you can keep going... Step 3 - all housewifes/husbands, etc. What about the artist/self-employed/etc group? Even immigrants? This way UBI doesn't have to be truly universal, so you can keep the benefits, and keep any unforseen problems under control. *** **Section 10 - Inflation** UBI will definitely cause inflation. The first consequence of destitute people becoming not-destitute is inflation. People who now are struggling to survive (many students for example) will be able to afford proper food, clothes, haircuts, etc. This creates a demand and in the short term allows businesses to increase prices. In the long term it causes the local economy to grow - more hairdressers, clothes shops and cafes will open. *** **Section 11 - Employment rates** It can be argued that UBI either increases or decreases total employment rates. In fact there have been many global trials showing both results. Generally they have not been properly implemented though, so it's hard to extrapolate the results to real UBI as described here. * People stuck in the welfare trap will be free to get jobs. But in general there is a shortage of jobs and a large surplus of job-seekers (although in highly-skilled jobs it's often the reverse). So this alone won't increase employment rates. Under UBI, everyone has an incentive to get a job, but nobody will be forced by regulation to fill in futile applications each week, or accept job offers they are not suitable for. All of the people who are not really able, available or motivated to work will stop applying. So life will become much easier for both employers and serious job applicants - both will immediately see greater prosperity. But this won't be visible in the headline employment rate. * Students, entrepeneurs, charity volunteers, many of the groups in section 3 - many will quit their day-jobs. This might cause wage-inflation in casual labour. Or maybe the people from the welfare-trap will immediately take all of these jobs. It's hard to predict. I think it's safe to say that the overall employment rate will not change much, but the employment landscape will change for the better. **Section 12 - Redistribution** In the example above, dole-earners and high-earners both pay about the same tax as before. The high earner pays slightly more tax - but he gets it back indirectly if he has adult dependents. But single high earners will lose income, and very low earners are getting much higher income than before. There are three ways to deal with this: * Do nothing - UBI has a slight wealth-redistributive effect * Lower the minimum wage to 200euro/week. This acts like a subsidy for employers. They save 50% on their payroll - it can an incentive to hire more. * Add a 50% tax on the first 200euro/week earnings. So the state gets some extra income. Options 2 and 3 mean that every type of worker has about the same income as before. But we have still achieved the goal of removing the welfare trap. It sounds unfair that low-earners must pay 50% tax - much more than high earners - but this is what they do today. Today, there is a hidden 50% tax on low earners. It is created by the interface between the welfare/tax systems. UBI (with option 3) just makes this explicit. **Section 13 - Real welfare trap examples** Of course legislators have thought the welfare trap before and tried to fix it. For example [here](https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/welfare-trap.jpg) and [here](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/download-remote-images/cdn2.spectator.co.uk/90489513330/Screen-Shot-2012-12-16-at-12.18.38.png) where your income stays nearly the same no matter how much you work, which is effectively a 100% tax on the lowest earners. This increases complexity but does not actually solve anything. It creates smaller welfare traps which the poor need to navigate, to avoid being pushed further into poverty. ([another example](https://medium.com/basic-income/if-we-can-afford-our-current-welfare-system-we-can-afford-basic-income-9ae9b5f186af)) **Section 14 (TBD) Balancing the budget** It would be useful to prove that UBI does not cost the government money, using calculations on real-world data. [extra money needed] = ([adult population] - [unemployed])*[dole payment] [extra money needed per employed] = [extra money needed] / [number of employed] [rate of the new flat income tax] = [extra money needed per employed] / [mean wage] ``` dole = 200 unemployed = 127.90*1000 extra_cost = (adult_population - unemployed) * dole employed = 2532.20*1000 mean_salary = 32381 / 52 population = employed * 100/65.20 cost_per_man = extra_cost / population rate = cost_per_man / mean_salary rate ``` The result is a 23% flat (non-progressive) tax. This is added to the existing taxes. So high earners pay a total of 63% marginal tax. This may sound high. Some say that too-high income taxes reduce total tax revenue and also economic productivity, because people have less incentive to work more and earn more money. Compare this to the existing situation, where low earners are effectively being charged more than 100% tax, which certainly leads to lower productivity and lower tax revenue, and is much worse. Also note that 63% is lower than [the usual estimate for the optimal tax rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Income_tax_rate_at_which_revenue_is_maximized). TBD: A plot would be useful, showing how an individual's income would change. X-axis is income before tax. Y-axis is income after tax. Traces: status-quo, single worker on UBI, worker with 3.1 dependents on UBI. **Section 15 - Other welfare programmes** The principle that is used here to design the optimum balanced tax/dole regime can and should be applied to others too. "What is available for free to some, should be available for free to all." To provide any thing to only the poorest creates a welfare trap, as well as bureaucracy, fraud, provision failures, etc. For example ambulance and fire services are provided to the rich as well as the poor. If they weren't the services for the poor might be neglected by government, resulting in disaster. Likewise, emergency housing, food and clothing provision must be available to all. Those who aren't immediately able to prove their need might be the ones in most desperate need. Subsidies for water and electricity and food must be for all, or else people whose circumstances improve might suddenly find they can't afford them. Child benefit and pensions must be given to people who don't need the money. The wealthy are the most entitled to it, since their taxes are already paying for their own subsidies, and subsidising other people's on top of that.

My vision of UBI
For a TLDR just read sections 2 and 3. *** **Section 1 - background** Most states pay the long-term unemployed some kind of income (AKA the dole). It's supposed to be just enough to survive. If you don't pay them it, you end up with high rates of sickness, malnutrition, etc which the state then has to deal with - so in the end it's much less expensive to pay the dole than not to. Note1. A regular payment is not the only option. It is just the conventional one. Other proposals such as guaranteed employment (building follies, moving the homeless to state-run farms), direct provision (eg food stamps, council housing, soup kitchens, communism), could be the subject of other proposals from other people. Note2. Other subsidies are normally provided alongside the dole, like housing and disability benefit, and like state pensions for the old and child benefit for the young. But for now assume they remain unchanged. Only the dole for working-age adults will be transformed in the following sections. *** **Section 2 - the welfare trap** When the unemployed get jobs, they stop receiving the dole. So when someone unemployed takes a job, he gains a new income but he loses another source of income. In ROI the minimum wage is 400€/week and the dole is 200€/week. So if you go off the dole and get a job you gain 400€ but you lose 200€, so effectively, your new income is being taxed at 50%. If you can only get a part time job for 20hours/week, you gain 200€ and you lose 200€, so you are working for nothing. On zero hours contracts the situation is even worse. So there is a strong financial incentive to stay on the dole. (On top of that, when you are at work, you need to pay for childcare, transport, lunches... And you don't have time to do the valuable things you spent your time on before - learning skills, maintaining your home, supporting your family, charity work or helping your neighbours.) Most people want to get jobs, just for self-respect or other social reasons. There are also many people who don't want to work, and maybe have good or bad reasons for that. Either way, right now people are incentivised to remain unemployed. They are punished for getting jobs by being pushed into financial precarity, and rewarded for staying on the dole. This is called the "welfare trap" - people literally cannot afford to get a job. This is the problem that UBI fixes. *** **Section 3 - UBI and workers** The solution is to just pay everybody the dole. For example here is how it applies to workers: The guy who gets a part time job on 200€ still receives his 200€ dole. The guy who makes 2000euro a week (100,000€/year) still gets paid an extra 200€. There's a catch of course. The income tax rates go up too. That's how the whole scheme is paid for. Imagine everybody pays an extra 20% tax with no income threshold: * The guy on the dole still gets 200€ * If he gets a part time job his income is 200+200x80%=360€ * If he gets a full time job it is 200+400*0.80=520€ * The guy getting 2000€/week - his net income changes by 200-2000*20%. He loses 200€/week. He is paying somebody else's UBI. In the end there is no financial burden on the state. It is all covered by the extra income tax. *** **Section 4 - UBI and other examples** [some of this section is just my personal opinion] So the dole is no longer conditional - on visiting on office every week, writing a certain number of job applications per week, the duration of unemployment, being "available for work" or anything else. This is many consequences but here are some big ones: * students - now they also get paid this "just enough to survive" cheque every week. No more need to also hold down a job, get into debt, or be malnourished for four years. * housewives - they have their own independent income. This means financial independence. * The artists and self-employed - they have a safety net of 200euro per week. It's expected that more people will become artists under UBI - more art will be created, because people will be more willing to take career breaks and see what happens, and struggling artists will be able to persist longer. * The between-jobs - People will have more fruitful careers, because they can afford to spend time unemployed, looking for the right new job. * Dole office workers. The dole offices can transform into job centres. They already pretend to have this function, but with UBI that will be their sole function. * Abused workers - now that people are guaranteed a living income if they resign from a job, they will be more willing to bargain for fair work conditions, report employers breaking the law, etc. For example many people will quit amazon warehouses, and amazon will have to improve working conditions or else face a huge problem. * immigrants - this is a special case. You might want to avoid incentivising immigration by, for example, excluding from UBI new immigrants who are not employed, for some time period. It's similar to what is done now with the dole. More on this later. *** **Section 5 - Fairness** So as seen above UBI can be an incentive to quit a job, as well as an incentive to quit the dole. But in both cases, it is a good thing. Ther are no known situations where UBI results in a worse outcome. Today there are separate taxation and benefits schemes. You can be a tax-payer or a beneficiary. People can be trapped in welfare or trapped in employment. UBI unifies the tax/benefits systems, so there is no barrier. People can move between employment and unemployment to improve their lives or escape bad situations. UBI just removes a problematic barrier. That's all it does. It is an improvement and simplification of two existing dysfunctional systems. An analogy is stamp duty. It creates a barrier to moving house, so it's more difficult to up-size when you're young, and it's also more difficult to down-size when you're old. Lots of people stay in houses much too big or too small just because of the expense of moving. It's a barrier to changing your living condition - in either direction - when you need to. And it's bad for the individual and also for society. There would be only good results if stamp duty were removed, and replaced by a fair tax (eg a property tax or land tax). *** **Section 6 - Families** This section is about the aforementioned guy above who earns 2000/week and is now losing 200 of that. He is paying mostly for students and housewives. But when he has a family, each of his dependents will be receiving a UBI, saving him money. He might not be so opposed to UBI when he sees the benefit of his student-children being financially independent of him. So UBI is costing him money now, but it will pay him back in the future at the time when his family has the most need of it. *** **Section 7 - The old and young** In general society comprises children, the working age, and pensioners. Child benefit is already just a UBI for children. It is a 35euro/week payment to support each child, regardless of income. It is a good example of a real-world UBI. There is no need to change it. Pensioners already have a somewhat fair system. It may need some reform but that is another day's work. For example the state pension can be replaced with a UBI for the old, as an optional second step. The issue now is a simple one - UBI for everyone of working-age. *** **Section 8 - The welfare system** All of the above benefits happen naturally. You get all these good effects, all across society ... not by creating a complex legal and institutional framework to consider each point and make it happen ... but by removing one. You get rid of the whole complex dole/benefits institution, and you create one universal tax levy and one universal payment. Then this whole societal transformation comes for free. This is why UBI proponents, some of them sound a bit naive, like they believe in an impossible dream. UBI sounds too good to be true. But the maths and the sociology are both sound. It's just a very good idea - so good it's hard to believe until you look closely. Proponents also mostly think the payment should be much higher than the dole is now, to have the effect of shifting income from the rich to the poor. But really that's a separate issue. You can do that just as easily today but shifting around the tax burdens, without introducing a UBI at all. [[continued](https://lemmy.ml/post/406934)]

The article many diverse claims. It’s a scattergun argument, where the author doesn’t have a single good point, so he make many weak ones. So I’ll just address the first point.

Calling for “Savings in health, justice, education and social welfare as well as the building of self-reliant, taxpaying citizen,” clearly means social cuts and privatization.

This is wrong. The savings are from lifting people out of poverty.

  • health: This is because the destitute save money by postponing medical care. In the long run they end up with much more expensive illnesses. This becomes a financial burden for the state. So it’s pragmatic to lift people out of poverty with UBI.

  • Justice: Reducing poverty is expected to reduce petty crime.

  • Education: I don’t know about this one. Maybe people predict a healthier job market so people don’t need so many qualifications to get a good career.

  • Social welfare: Because UBI increases employment by removing the welfare trap.

You might not agree with all of the above points. But they are all probable consequences of UBI people might reasonably expect. Saying it “clearly means social cuts and privatization” is shockingly stupid. The article was written by someone who doesn’t even understand the basics.

It don’t have time to refute everything in the article. But really, it is all bollox.

If working with live wires, do the whole thing standing on a wooden stool. You must have a thick insulator between you and ground. You will probably touch a live wire at some point, and the size of shock you get depends on how well insulated you are from the ground, walls, and other objects around you.

Don’t bother wrapping wires around you.

If you connect the live to the earth wire, you will blow the fuse, and probably destroy the wires too. Then you’ll have to rip out the plaster to lay new wires.

This is not difficult if you are careful, not tired, and have good common sense.

Wrap the live in electrical tape first. Only unwrap it for the few seconds where you are putting it into its connector. That’s the only step you need to do carefully.

This is a straw-man argument. Nobody would ever (I hope) try to implement UBI that way. It would be a disaster.

But this is a general problem. Proponents and opponents of any thing, are usually talking about very different versions of the thing. If not, they have incompatible perspectives on the thing. I can explain more about this if you like - you really need to see examples to see why it’s important.

There aren’t really serious doubts about whether UBI would work, or what its effects are on society. But there are many misunderstandings about what UBI is.

I can axplain later about UBI if you like. But for now, what kind of revolution are you thinking of? What is the political goal of the anti-work people?

Are you talking about UBI? Or communism? Or something else?

But after UBI much more charity work will start being done. There will be a critical mass of people who have time and funds to build up their own communities.

I would keep doing the same job, but also some community work.

Why don’t people selling houses accept payment in installments?
Today, they normally demand upfront payment, so the buyer has to borrow from a bank. These loans are extortionate. The buyer normally pays the bank back about double what he borrowed, over about 30 years. Instead, the buyer could offer to pay 50% extra on the cost of the house. But he will pay some of it in installments over 30 years. The bank gets nothing, and the buyer and sellers both make huge savings. It wouldn't be suitable for every sale, but it would for many. So why don't people do it? Is there some legal restriction where only the banks are allowed to do this kind of financing?

In a lot of the world people are car-dependent. So we must force manufacturers to stop making tyres that wear excessively fast. Which is easy for governments but difficult anyone else.

And reducing car-dependency obviously would be the longer term solution.

A big problem in cities. Is already known to cause serious diseases in humans, and the research is only beginning now. We don’t know anything about the effects on wildlife.

The second one is zoomed in, to make it look worse. Being able to see that there is solid ground on the left is important.

The example I know is where you take a random healthy man. Then you find five people who are waiting for different organ donations. Is it right to kill that man and harvest his organs, to save the five.

I find it a much more insightful example.

Will there be a “debate vegans” type sub? I still have so many questions, but don’t know where to ask.

On the other hand, electrolysis could be a good use of electricity supply peaks. There aren’t many others:

  • pumping water up dams and towers
  • mining bitcoin
  • charging batteries
  • anything else?

Very good article though. I learnt a lot.

“That’s a nice shirt” is generally taken as a sincere and high complement. Anything else at all will get funny looks.


Why is everybody posting screengrabs of websites, but no link to the actual website.
Example from the top of the frontpage right now https://lemmy.ml/post/345928 https://lemmy.ml/post/345928 https://lemmy.ml/post/345290 https://lemmy.ml/post/345883 https://lemmy.ml/post/345838

Cannot log out of Lemmy
When I try to log out (using the top right menu) the page just refreshes. Sometimes it works if I log out then refresh, or restart the browser, or log out several times in a row; but not always. I am using Tor on Windows. Is it a known problem? Is there a known solution?

The headline is about something different. "Wives of Mariupol soldiers dispersed by police at Kyiv protest " But in the article is this sentence, phrased so oddly that you might miss it. > Wives of Ukrainian soldiers under siege in Mariupol who gathered in Kyiv to demand the evacuation of their husbands have been dispersed by police who gave army conscription notices to men who joined the protest. > Police officers ordered the women at the latest protest to leave the square as the event had not been authorised and gave conscription orders to a number of men. There it is again! Nearly the same sentence, phrased the same strange way. What's going on?

But somehow the world's headlines are ignoring this globally important event and inspecting every detail of the war in Ukraine instead.

Activism choices - individual, social or political
I've noticed that activists (or just people who care about any public issue, even if they are not very active about it) fall into three categories. 1. Individualist people. They want to make personal choices to change their personal impact on the world. Many strongly oppose taking political action at all. People who just avoid buying meat or petrol cars or nestle or products from occupied palestine etc. That is their way of making a difference. 2. Social people. They are interested in the local/community level. They organise swap-meets, do bicycle repair workshops, they work together on allotments, they volunteer at charities. 3. Political people. They want to make national or global changes. They go to protests, write to politicians, vote in elections. Of course most people do a bit of all three. But everyone seems to be really focused on only one of them. *** I will argue that #1 is three things: 1. Ineffective. 2. Counter-productive. 3. Self-defeating. *** Ineffective The amount of impact you can have by tweaking your lifestyle is small. Even if many people do it, business will not. And most of the problems are caused by businesses. You won't impact overfishing by refraining from fishing yourself, but people think that you can impact pollution by not driving a car yourself. In most cases it's the businesses which must change their ways, not the individuals. Counter-productive What if you stop buying fish? Even if 1 billion people decide to not buy fish, that still leaves 6 billion people who are still buying fish. This is the perfect situation for fishing businesses - despite massive opposition, their sales are barely affected. 1 billion people opposing fishing with political action would kill the industry. But people think buying more tofu and less beef is worthwhile in the fight against farming malpractice, that buying a bike or electric car will help against pollution. This style of activism is very popular among the problem industries themsleves, and actively promoted by them. It is "activism by excercising consumer choice". But we must be more than just savvy consumers, to really change anything. *** Self-defeating If you make a choice - you will use less water, heat your house less, eat less tasty food, spend more money on ethically produced products - you are making a small sacrifice. Others are not. Those others are at an economic advantage against you. Even if all you are spending is mental energy, they will have slightly richer lives than you. In aggregate, this type of action is self-limiting, self-defeating. If the people who do the right thing suffer slightly, and the people who don't are unpunished, there is a strong disincentive to take action. This is the opposite of what is needed. *** I made an earlier post about how everyone is divided - interested in different causes - so there is no critical mass to change any one thing - even though there is broad support for all of the causes. I won't repeat that here - it's a different problem. *** So, to me this has all become obvious recently by talking to kinds of people I wouldn't normally talk to. Individualist action is very popular. There is even a taboo against political action. People want to avoid confrontaion, and they are jaded of the news cycle. But does have a value - as the entry-level. To start people thinking about the greater good, ease people into being concientious. #1 is the easiest, so you can get satisfaction from making a small difference. And you don't risk big disappointments or uncomfortable confrontations, so it's accessible to more personality types, which is important. It also feels more democratic, more civilised. But I'm convinced now, that these individualist people (the vast majority IMO) all need to be persuaded into more effective methods. To spend any energy, time, money on activism through personal consumer choices, it undermines the very cause you are working for. These methods are championed only by the very industries who want nothing to change.

Open survey about censorship on lemmy
This seems to be becoming the hot topic, the elephant in the chatroom - the balance between censorship / freedom of speech on lemmy. There are solid arguments for both ways, and good compromises too. IMO the FAQ makes it quite clear what the devs have built here, and why. But recent discussions, arguments, make it clear that a lot of the most vocal users object to it. I'm very curious. Many **active** users feel this way? Please vote using the up arrows in the comments.