It’s great to hear that “every outcome is open science / open source” with permissive licenses for the common good instead of a patent.
Continuing this theme, Liberapay would make sense as an option for contributing.
There is no one universally right way to do activism. We need a diversity of tactics.
I had a similar observation when watching it, particularly around eco-modernism.
As Giorgos Kallis put it,
“eco-modernism — that is, the idea that all environmental and social problems can ultimately be solved with the application of technology, and that the only solution to the problems of modern technology is more modern technology.”
Can you please comment on:
My intention is not to be pedantic, but to learn more about your proposed solution. I do appreciate your thoughtful answers in the comments here.
I have some questions::
Will there be discussion before banning or only after banning?
Will the ban system be reviewed regularly and by whom?
Are you open to discussing the technology you claim to have built for this? In my opinion, denying transparency and relying on security by obscurity of a closed-source algorithm makes me question the algorithm and also reminds me of moderation on Meta and YouTube.
Have you attempted this method of tone policing with manual moderation in any communities first? If so, how did it go?
Is this post satire?
Are there any instances that you’d recommend? My current instance is shutting down. One day, I’ll set up my own.
One requested feature has been to be able to seed while not watching a video. This could help out to further distribute the serving of videos.
IMO the main benefitof seeding while watching is any “viral” videos or videos being watched many times concurrently have a reduced load on the server.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Don’t feed the trolls.
We need a diversity of tactics.
To be fair, a country is a political entity or state. I read it as being targeted towards the state, rather than all people living in the USA.
Oh hell yeah.
Lots of balcony veggie gardening, helped a friend set up a rain barrel, guerrilla gardening local wildflowers, and taking more trips by bike. I always enjoy seeing what the rest of you are up to!
Can’t wait to see it! :)
It’s some napkin math but I don’t think it changes the outcome. If we go by 428 hours per year, that’s still 17.8 days which is a lot.
The true cost of car ownership you cited was from 2023 and since then insurance premiums and car costs have continued to increase. AAA which could be considered biased, doesn’t include the medical expenses and legal fees involved in car crashes either.
This a great read on the topic, which I pulled a quote from:
According to a study published last year by the NHTSA, America’s highway-safety regulator, the direct economic costs of car crashes in 2019 was $340bn, or about 1.6% of GDP
But this article seems to imply that it’s either fossil fuels or foot power. We have access to cheap renewables, why can’t we use that?
I didn’t interpret the article as presenting bicycling as the only transportation option.
Although trains and public transport can fill in the gap for longer distances, EVs will be necessary in limited cases. The point is that our dependence on all types of cars and the infrastructure that comes with it is excessive and a massive contributor to the destruction of our climate. They are also literally killing us, hence auto insurance being mandated in most states/provinces.
EVs are better than ICE cars and should be used as one of the replacements - but not nearly enough to solve our climate crisis by buying an electric car. That’s why there is also a push to designing cities for active transportation and public transportation. The emmissions from walking and cycling are incomparable to those of an EV.
If the narrative that electric cars and renewable energy are all that’s needed to solve our climate crisis continues, then our planet will continue to warm.
In my opinion, there are greater influences than voter turnout on climate policy. The corporate lobbying, aggressive PR, and disinformation has influenced the state more than any vote. There have historically been no candidates to even vote for that cared about global warming.
And the oil and gas corporations themselves have influenced voters in the same way. Embedding oil into masculinity, lack of global warming discussion in the monopolized media outlets, etc… Attempts to keep information and awareness from the average voter and make us doubt global warming and even defend oil companies.
IMO, the American state’s impulse to protect capital and monopoly is the primary reason the climate response has been so poor.