Well go ahead, provide the best car for comparison out of your list of "a lot of cars".
Then we can objectively compare it to the closest Tesla model to it.
That is if that car is even being manufactured at any scale at all...
372 karma · joined August 19, 2021
Then we can objectively compare it to the closest Tesla model to it.
That is if that car is even being manufactured at any scale at all...
When you block other instances you realize you are islanding yourself off, right? Not the other way around.
Everyone is federated until you block, so you are isolating yourself from the norm when you block others.
It's not too noticeable as the english speaking instances are small currently, but those who don't want wolfballs and friends, or this or that are more isolated than those who do.
It makes sense that those who want to hide views from others are the outliers. Those who want to be open and allowing of diverse thought are more interoperable.
Go ahead and look over any Mastodon thread a year ago or before.
Generally it was dismissed with "oh it's too niche" or "moderation will be too difficult".
People ignored the communities already on it and the tech overall.
Only until people got pissy about Elon running Twitter instead of hedge funds did the general sentiment here change.
It wasn't about the tech, and not even about Elon specifically, it was the Twitter safe space got taken away.
But now hopefully the people who want that safe space will isolate themselves in mastodon instances that block all others and we can all live in peace from them.
Now it's mainstream to work on a a cool technology that's been around for awhile!
Oh and everyone can act like they weren't bad mouthing the tech and saying it wasn't going to work before.
Visit any Mastodon thread here before Elon's Twitter and it's nothing but negativity.
- REPLYING TO BELOW -
> Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.
Such as? Like a large magnet to pull the guns out of their hand?
Sometimes these situations will only result in shootouts, like busting a drug operation of a gang.
Then you have to go in to protect other citizens. Sending in a robot would then be safer. And it's been done before.
> Working on having less guns would be a start. In terms of "less lethal" pepper spray is usually pretty good
Sure, but that's not today, gangs currently have guns. Drug busts currently have dangers.
(note I don't agree that guns are the problem, if anything everyone should be armed)
It's all speculation based on nothing of substance. That's why I asked GP to expand on his thought process.
By talking with the person directly you're able to understand that reasoning much better vs interpretation.
They wouldn't need a careers page to know who to hire, generally careers pages are for applicants.
Socrates pupils listened and discussed his ideas with him directly and very in-depth.
Instead of him writing down statements to be misinterpreted, he instilled his philosophy into many people through direct conversation.
You'll do everything you can to avoid it first though, until the stress of the deadline overweighs the dread to start.
Could you explain what you meant by this?
Luau may be an alternative as well, haven't tried it.
I love Lua, but at larger scales it's unmanageable.
Nim is used heavily in the gaming industry as a Lua replacement as well.
Is that all cultures you're waiting to die out that are using ICE vehicles and eating chicken, or just Western peoples?
Lots of babies and and future babies who live those lifestyles you're going to have to wait to die...
The title is called "Is it time to start eating algae?" even...
The answer to the title is no, unless you want to, which you can already.
If it was about another option it would be a recipe article, not a climate change article.
some transit costs $5m per mile, some transit is $1b per mile, find the corrupt one.
anytime you have a large spigot of taxpayer money you'll have people in charge trying to funnel it away using contractors, lobbyists, etc.
some people do want to eat crab and lobsters, some don't.
it's not a naming issue or a perception issue, it's a choice issue.
Essentially you can learn middle-out vs other languages.
To understand a programming language you just need the bare bones.
English is the JS of programming languages though, being that it's everywhere and it's very easy to use.
ExtensionKit allows you to expose realtime UI or information, coming from an installed app instead of a 3rd party service.
That way you don't have to expose your API or build an SDK. You just have functions in your app that can be invoked.
Also the feature is only provided if the user has that app installed. So the experience is curated.
Everyone just sees a person wasting glue, vandalizing art, and acting like a child.
It's a selfish act to make them feel better and boast amongst their peers.
If anything it hurts the movement they claim to support.
I guess picking up trash doesn't give them a good enough high...
Not even that but every country and it's industries that have been transitioning from coal to nat. gas are fudging the numbers to pretend it's better?
And you know that because you were a roughneck "who did fracking jobs", therefore you can see through these numbers.
That's quite a story, but I'll go with the breakdown of energy production by source, and the tracked emissions of energy production trends.
First off, I'd say total emissions by electricity generation is a great single metric to look at.
Second, those studies you didn't even reference were most likely FUD. I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking.
But instead of coming up with useless analogies about cocaine and falling back on studies you didn't even reference, please respond to each of my points instead of talking past me.
Maybe start with the fact that there are no replacements ready for coal other than nat. gas.
I'm all for building up nuclear energy and even battery banks. But currently nothing is available other than nat. gas to take the load that coal has produced.
Soo... the best way to reduce emissions is to use nat. gas until a solution is built up and ready. (cough, nuclear, cough)
Renewables will most likely never be able to handle the peak load, you need a baseline source, that's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy thanks to their densities.
---- edit ----
@lm28469: You're still not addressing any of my points. Dropping a study and calling it a day is not a conversation. At least pick out a point to defend from it...
But here's the cool thing. We don't need to read through your biased studies!
We know nat. gas is cleaner than coal and we can see it from reduction of emissions as we transition off of coal to nat. gas.
If you want to displace nat. gas as well, support nuclear as the new baseline standard! Or come up with better battery tech!
Until then, it's not ready and we need energy so we don't die... so nat. gas it is. Or coal worst case.
2. It's very small amounts and it can be captured (and is in some instances)
3. The US reduced emissions while growing energy output thanks to nat. gas displacing coal.
We don't have to take your word for it, we can see that nat. gas energy production is cleaner than coal, because we have actual data from our transition off of coal to nat. gas.
The methane talking point is just that. It's not an actual issue, and you can see it's not from overall numbers.
If you truly cared about emissions you'd want the current best solution that drives it down. That would mean displacing coal at all cost. The current best way to do that is nat. gas and fracking.
Nuclear isn't built up as a baseline, renewables aren't ready for peak loads, and outsourcing it to someone else only shuffles it around. So... natural gas it is...
Shale oil deposits are usually found in harsh landscapes where not many people live.
Fracking fluid is just 90% water, 9.5% is sand, 0.5% additives. Those additives are normal cleaning products like salts, antifreeze.
Yeah you don't want to drink them but in small quantities they are fine to be in the middle of nowhere.
You'd rather have more global emissions than some small amount of pool cleaner in a remote desolate landscape?
Would you rather we burn our trash vs putting it in a landfill too? Because that's the same line of thinking.
But since you're insinuating fracking is as bad as nuking a city... you do realize that emissions went down in the US while electricity generation rose due to nat. gas displacing coal thanks to fracking?
Were you fine with Germany outsourcing their energy to Russia, even though the production of the energy was dirtier than what Germany could have made itself?
What actions have you noticed that contradicts his statements?
So we can debate whether or not you came to the right conclusion in interpreting said actions.
Or were you just making general hand waving statements?