sweetpotato

Enough so that I can pay the AC bill during the night, cause healthy sleep requires low temperatures.

Besides that, I will ask for as much as I can get away with.

Depends really. What do you value in your life? What ethical framework do you use? Do you value freedom and self determination, do you value people different from you as much as people of your nationality/race? Or perhaps do you value the Western stability, growth, dominance and wellbeing at the expense of the economic South more? There’s no objective answer, it depends on you and your viewpoint.

If we do away with the propaganda and misinformation we are left with this question. Because the US and Europe would never support anyone for the sake of them being the only democracy in the middle east or fighting terrorists or whatever. If that were the case the US wouldn’t have been complicit with the dictatorships of the gulf countries or any other of the innumerable dictatorships they have established throughout the years in the world. And they would also not be funding the ISIS or other terrorist groups in Columbia, Cuba, Nicaragua and so many other countries.

No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn’t serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

So what do you value? Freedom and dignity for all, or more power for the Western states and corporations (- and whatever religious crap you want to excuse colonising and ethnically cleansing a nation)?

If you see this, it’d save you a lot of time from arguing about every single event of the conflict. If you see every human in the world as equal and deserving of freedom, then you’d see that Israel and the West is bringing these people at the brink of extinction, torturing, killing, humiliating, starving them, expelling them from their land, destroying their vital civil infrastructure, stealing their land and property for 75 years now. And when you see all this (not from Western mainstream media though), you’d recognise the right for armed struggle against a colonizing entity that Israel is. No civilian casualties are acceptable, but the ones affected in 7/10/23 would have to turn against their government for ethnically cleansing Palestinians, bringing them to that desperate point of retaliation, not Palestinians.

Someone should make a phase diagram as well. With temperatures on the Y axis and percentage of being gay or straight on the X axis. Like we do fora alloys

Because it’s a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn’t change that fact. I’m not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.

At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You’d again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you’d tell us to vote for Harris.

I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.

I genuinely don’t understand how uranium can exist a priori in this argument but lead not? I might be missing something.

What exactly did they say that made you draw this conclusion? I’m so curious

These mfs will use literally anything except for open source, decentralised social meda

What are you talking about? The asshole works as a die. Extrusion is about deforming the object, it doesn’t have to change its general “shape”. If there is plastic deformation, which there is as stated(unless you hold it in unhealthily long), then it counts. You extrude a cylinder with a big cross section to one with a smaller cross section.

I never realized that this process is basically a biological cold extrusion.

Ayn Rand’s fountainhead, by a fat mile. I was young and didn’t know better

What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.

I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.

I’d like to see any scientific study that reassures at least a little that this won’t have terrible ramifications for ecosystems and the food chain.

We know too little, we are shortsighted and we have a bad record of intervening with nature.

Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool

It’s almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability

That’s fair, but I believe cities can’t be like that regardless. It’s where you live everyday, the forests do not fix that. Your surroundings everyday affect mental and physical health (and these two interact with each other as well) and although a Sunday walk in nature is important, it will be negligible.

You have a much higher chance of living a sedentary life because you have to be in a car all day, so statistically less exercise, more obesity, worse quality of sleep (shown in scientific studies) all of which lead to mental health deterioration. There is also more noise pollution the more cars there are and the less trees there are, not only in the house(let’s suppose you have good insulation) but also when you are out of the house. This is causing stress (you can’t always realize this but it’s happening), so high blood pressure, mental health issues etc. And of course air pollution. Besides all that, there are also less interactions with other people, less public spaces, so less socialization which is also a big factor in mental health and overall wellbeing. I personally really value the latter.

I’m not trying to throw shade to the country, I wish the way of life was better, cause I’d like to work there for some years and I’m not saying Europe is perfect, obviously the problems exist there as well but to a very lower degree. I could live almost wherever in Europe, but I can never live in the US.

Haven’t been there, I can imagine, but could it be any other way? I mean, what would the alternative be? Have no forests and green spaces in the entire country? That would not be sustainable.

Your urban planning. Your cities are unwalkable, the scenery makes me depressed af, everything is scaled up for cars, even restaurants are for cars, the highways are huge, all I can see is tar. I don’t know how you can live like that.