cassepipe

Using a email a free email provider with Thunderbird is a pain nowadays

You can get away with not giving your phone only with google and outlook but you will need recovery addresses. For those I am using proton mail, they don't require anything and for those I have the recovery key saved somewhere.

Also you will get error messages in thunderbird from outlook that it doesn't work... but it does work !

I did all that in anger but if I had to do it again I would just use one of those super cheap provider where you pay 1$ a month or even by usage and use TB with that.

Hey mail, fastmail, they all look great but I don't even pay that much to my bank or any other services so no way I am spending 5 euros or more a month for email

Which rock have you been hiding under for the past 30 years ?

I don't think someone expressing a unsubstantiated negative opinion is akin to trolling

I would define trolling as a low-effort/sloppy attempt at a counterargumentation whose sole point is to ragebait you into looking unhinged in your response so that we can make fun of you

I have never heard anyone diss qemu before. Care to elaborate?

Don't those reactors already exist ?

Turns out the glass was half-empty and half-empty then

So I tried to check but at least in France the concentration of wealth was decreasing until 1980 when it started to raise again until now. We are now back at the 1935 level where 1% has 40% of the wealth

EDIT: For the U.S same tendancies but you started from lower concentration and you also sit at 40% now

I have no doubt that you are I was in no way looking down on the role of organized labor and pro-labor movements into getting the majority decent living standard. On the other hand, labor was already well-organized, so what changed ? I'd say the ability to harness ever more so energy to a point where it was abundant. All of our standard of living is downstream of cheap energy. It feeds the machine and the machines work for us. Now we have a stake in the system because we rely on it much much more.

> After 70’s you look at purchasing power and living standards stagnating and both political and economical power becoming more and more concentrated on small elite

Is it the case though ? Probably it was more concentrated than in the decades before but I have a hard time to believe that it's more concentrated now than when we had political posters denouncing the "200 families" that ran the country. Anyways I am against the concentration of wealth and I am even against the existence of billionaires (I believe individual wealth should be capped so that it doesn't become political power) but I think your view of those articles is uncharitable. It is a binary worldview where people are either for labor or mouthpieces for capital and I just don't believe you get anywhere interesting with that approach, imputing motives has little value compared to actually try to respond to the arguments being made

> just a thin veil for business as usual rentier capitalism, that only benefits a very small elite

Trying to figure out how to best organize cities and develop them in the best interest of the public while trying to cap the negative externalities of development is a worthwhile endeavor

The problem with that worldview is that it's always the same look from the same perspective that is, the economic machine is an extractive system (top <- bottom) and the colonial system is entirely responsible for the current state of the countries a lot of people are trying to leave.

Your perspective ignores the fact that some of "us, the people" are actually benefiting from this economic machine/collective organization. In industrialized societies, it's been decades that even the people at the bottom of the social ladder have "more to lose than their chains". And no matter how morally responsible ex-colonizing nations are, it is a fact that newcomers have to be somewhat integrated economically and culturally and that no society knows how to do that at the scale of arrivals. It turns out reality is not as simple as our moral world is and it takes time and thankless work to figure out what's happening. Morality is somewhat well-equipped at handling relationships and at maybe detecting the economic/political systems failure modes but it is not well-equipped at solving societal issues.

The truth is that it is easy to attribute merit and blame but har to actually trying to make relevant change. Our vision of History is somewhat biased because we remember people who were responsible for positive change as people with the "right" position but it is often forgotten how much strategy, technical issues they've had to solve fort those to prevail :

https://www.amazon.fr/-/en/Waging-Good-War-Thomas-Ricks/dp/1...?

Been here 5 years, never saw it

The point is that a pen far away from the land might not be very practical/much more expensive to take care of

The article does not mention land-based fish farms but instead the "egg", a more enclosed pen that is underwater but estimate that it is 10 times the cost of a pen. How would a land-based fish farm would compare economically to those innovative underwater sea pens in your seemingly educated opinion ?

From what I understand the fjord are relatively enclosed ecosystems and tend to accumulate stuff from the human acitivies around it

That's an interesting fact but that does not tell me anything about the possibility it has of raising salmon in its own waters

Do you mean the combination with caffeine or just the sugar? Cause I've had very sweet stuff before and it is definitely not producing the same effects

So a shallow search turned up that taurine in energy drinks and thiamine in tea tends to smooth the effects of caffeine

I must be strange because I feel no effect from coffee until I drink too much which is when my heart beats too fast for too long and I feel anxious

Energy drinks on the other hand ? The taste sucks but they do work and give me what I guess most people get from coffee ? They make me sharp and pumped up

On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand I think this is highly idealistic: Most people would have a hard time debating a flat-earther since it's their hobby and they master all the talking points whereas you spent maximum one hour even thinking about it in the last 10 years. They will get you in a dark forest of details you don't know how to navigate and win the argument.

I am so sorry for the one in a million crackpot-sounding genius that will get hurt in the process but social shunning is just so so much more effective. No wonder the crackpots and grifters are back and running the show nowadays

I think a better approach is to ask people who have contrarian/non-consensual opinions to show that they know that they are crackpots out and to distance themselves from them:

"I know some people come up with conspiracy theories that says climate is a hoax designed to control populations because they don't want to change anything in their way of life but that's not what I am. I just care about the science and I think I found a real flaw in the leading explanation of climate change. I'd love for someone with knowledge about to discuss it with me to see if they took X into account" etc.

This above is what I expect but if you quack like a quack, you're probably a quack and you'll get the social shunning treatment

Which I enjoyed quite a lot, for unrelated reasons

...or not ? As el Nino would say: Porque no los dos ?

And your point is... ?

Just because some people go to work in inefficient and dangerous-to-others cars does not make them more efficient. I am working a construction job, does this mean I should not think about what I am doing ?

This covers the subject comprehensively : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

Sure but you extrapolated to weather modification, the initial idea is to go around/avoid some area

I don't really care about the implementation, I'll let you figure out the details, work your magic

I just want to go to an hospital, get an injection, fall asleep and wake up on a bed at another hospital somewhere else.

No, you misunderstood what this is about

Except there is another issue, how many people do you fit in this shape ? If you can only fly 30 people that's not very efficient as it would mean more flights.

Also I believe the further away you are from the rotation axis of the plane where it turns left or right, the more unpleasant your flight may be

I love how the last image of the landing page is a model of the most efficient plane ever designed on a pole attached to what may be the least efficient vehicle ever made, the infamous US tax-loophole-pick-up truck