mptest

>Given all those rhetorical shaming of individuals to consume less, it's illuminating to actually look at the data and see what's the actual the effect even if you could literally force (instead of shaming) everyone to live that lifestyle. Yeah, almost like the entire notion of a "carbon footprint" was a piece of propaganda produced by a literal oil company[0] to move the blame of polluting the planet from the corporations that knowingly did it, to earnest and empathetic individuals like the original person I replied to, causing them to abstain from vacation (and more) for negligible benefit while the corporations continue to pollute with impunity.

[0] https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE

>The only way stuff gets done is through outreach and education. Once a critical mass of people truly believe that the only way forward is through intense environmental law reform, then it will happen

Exactly. I completely agree with the both sides bit, I just think we've got the direction of priority wrong.

Reduction in consumerism comes downstream from that type of education and outreach. Going at consumerism first just makes you seem like a reactionary who wants to "steal our gas stoves" to the ignorant propagandized, and unfortunately needed, masses

>100 companies producing 71% of emissions to sell us products that we continue to buy

And they could in most cases produce those goods with a more ecological process, but since that requires reducing profit at least in the short term, it won't ever get done without regulation. Which requires political action.

I agree in general with "consumerism needs to also be reduced" but that's just way down stream from the most impactful things conscientious actors can do. Like those prices would reduce consumerism, and I'd rather have complaints about not being able to afford the new iphone than boiling oceans. I still think there's plenty of space to trim in the profit section of the pie before we increase cost.

I never didn't agree with personal action is important, paper straws good technically, all that good stuff, sure. Just mostly negligible vs political action in a perfectly democratic world.

All I meant to get at is that like per "dollar" of effort spent, you get by far the best return on political action. Personal changes are just nowhere near as efficient. Not taking airplanes vs getting a climate conscious politician elected locally quantified would surely demonstrate that? Again though I'm no climate scientist and I'm mostly talking from my ass and a few books about climate.

>parent commentators reduction in emissions has been useless

Useless? Of course not. Completely negligible? Absolutely, 100%. I'm no climate scientist but voting literally once for the party that believes in climate science probably has about a million x the effect of you not going on vacation.

>Be conscious about what we can do as individuals

All I'm contesting is that the most effective thing we can do is participate and organize in politics.

Not going on vacation and markedly decreasing your quality of life to reduce climate emissions by 1x10^-9999999 percent is naively negligible at best, a propagandized (by an oil company nonetheless) abdication of their larger responsibility to participate in politics causing the actual damage as science denying lunatics fill offices around the nation at worst.

>Shifting blame and absolving yourself

Reckless misrepresentation of my comment. I suggested that political action is what you should do, not spend your days worrying about how many plastic straws you used.

I'm suggesting all empirics point to the notion that tackling regulation of corporations would have a trillion x the effects of you not allowing yourself to go on vacation because planes = bad.

I am not suggesting any absolution of responsibility. I'm suggesting we look at the basic math behind carbon consumption and note the pretty clear picture painted by 100 companies producing 71% of emissions.

Voting/organizing for politicians that actually change the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies among a litany of other reductions is and always will be a billion x more productive than needlessly preventing yourself from having a nice vacation.

Why would you restrict yourself so when 71% of climate emissions are produced by 100 companies??

Never understood the impetus to restrict yourself when we're beyond negligible.

Carbon footprint propaganda was rhetoric popularized by BP themselves to shift the blame to empathetic people like you and your wife, while they continue to make everything worse.

Vote for and organize for serious progressive candidates who take climate seriously in your local elections. That will do a million $ more than you not taking a vacation because of plane emissions while the rich take private flights down to the grocery store.

In a similar vein to the CPTSD rec, I will always tell people Walking your blues away by thom hartman (basically about applying emdr while walking) saved my life. It is a truly wonderful short and easy to read book.Everyone I've recommended it to from different walks of life have all found it fantastic. If you've anything weighing on you, walking your blues away may help. Thank you for your recommendations.

>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today!

how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people

- Only nation where this happens

for a company like this, the real reason is because you can give users 0% return while on the backend actually making return with their money, same as any "bank" that holds usd.

for people like do kwon and sbf, and many others I probably don't know about, what you said

>controlled by a cabal of extraordinarily entrenched early adopters, many of whom established themselves on speculation, grift, and fraud

Aka buying the stuff while you lot were laughing at it and calling them magic internet beans over on /r/buttcoin

"Safety costs too much. The fda should make the decisions based on what would be best for the billion dollar corporations!" Or maybe they should have the US distribution rights seized and testing paid for and then the product profited on by tax payers instead of a private corporation? Win win for everyone but the billion $ corporation. don't really see "fuck it, make us less safe so corporations can make more money" as rational policy. And if you don't think drastically reducing the barriers to entry for products in to the us would make us less safe I'm certainly open to hearing how.

>have any tips Unfortunately I don't. You raise a really good point though lol. Everyone's idea might seem good as these guys' to probably even experts in the domain itself. I have been profoundly lucky from my spawn point to my current career so I can't give any earnest advice about that. I did briefly work at a semiconductor startup company that similarly had a "crazy brilliant" research idea and did find some funding. It didn't go great.

Like I said, there's a reason I'm not in charge of any VC stuff and I largely don't invest myself lol.

I wish you the best of luck with your invention though, please never give up and never stop dreaming. People like you even if you never produce it push us ALL forward. Thanks for what you do

Fair enough, you know the field better than me, I just interpreted it as more there's never really a labor shortage due to people not wanting to work, it's pretty much always a lack of good incentives.

The regulations on how many "trainees" can exist at any one time is an interesting point of contention. Honestly, sorry I commented if that's the hold back for you guys.

I still struggle to imagine there is any job a six digit (or local comparative equivalent) salary with a fully paid training won't spur an abundance of candidates for. If your career is one, I'm sorry I so confidently doubted you

Uh, Pay people to train then? That sounds like a "people won't do a free/low paid 'internship' for years" problem... Pay the trainee positions more = more trainees? "Learn x career and get paid decent money" really, really wouldn't work in your mind? I find that very hard to believe

>Mj legalization has led to increased use already

Has it also reduced the consumption of any other substances? I wonder what % replaced a different habit.

Well that anecdote is veeeery helpful from a sociological perspective. Thanks for that insight.

Wow! They could still hold hands in public. Who cares if they weren't afforded the same legal and financial rights, they could go on dates! Pretty crazy comment man or maybe I'm naive as a straight dude.

Speaks to a supreme confidence in the theory, surely? I'm a layman but imagine everyone is going to want to hear every wild idea these guys could think up if this works out. They might have been sitting on this for 20 years? Probably why I'm not, but If I were any vc person I'd be busting down their door trying to give them all my money

My library has fricken 3d printers. It's quite obvious that guys' politics. "All taxes are theft" isn't the mature political position he believes it is... He was never serious lol. "Get rid of all taxes except road maintence and reduce everyone's taxes by 20%"

That was an incredible read. thank you for that. "Oll Korrect", Old kinderhook(!) , oke okeh, Ohne Korrectur. Etymology is awesome. I really overestimated how much we know about our own language I guess!

Wow, "backronym". Cool word. Interesting something can be widely accepted among a nation and have little to no surety about etymology

How did nonce get that meaning in the uk? I've always known nonce to be a single use number

>Do american politicians

One side much much much more than the other. Only one side banning mandated water breaks.

Your body is always the product, that's the point. You're selling your body (the product) to a company or directly to the consumer.

Sure, a llm might not be general enough/trustworthy enough yet, but transformer based analysis of drone sensory data surely is already being tested/developed? I'm no engineer but I think it is fairly obvious they'd train their own models not trust an off the shelf general LLM

So because he made one(+) bad prediction, all future predictions are inherently poor? It seems that may be a tad of a leap? Where is the line between "poor prediction" and "hysterics"?

"Deep learning will replace radiologists within 5 years" isn't as inherently crazy as it probably seems in hindsight. Sure, it didn't pan out, but I know a vet who works for an Ai company classifying scans for training and he says first hand the models have gotten a lot better. That said, he's still not worried about being replaced.

>The idea that Norway holds some sort of moral high ground with respect to fossil fuels is offensive

They at the very LEAST deserve the moral high ground of largely distributing the economic benefits of those fossil fuels to their citizens rather than to a dozen billionaires while their nation's infrastructure becomes dilapidated