Leading up go on an mostly liquid diet. Diet shakes would probably do it. And just don't eat solid food. This, BTW, is going to suck when it's over as you'll feel like you need your bowel disimpacted. But it is possible.
I've done it myself, so I clearly have no problem with it myself. Gallows humor is in poor taste, but billionaires don't give a damn about random schlubs like myself, so that indifference is reciprocated.
Plus... plus. It was fucking stupid to take a tiny submarine hundreds of feet underwater to explore a 100 year old sunken relic. The tragedy of the Titanic is well documented! If you want to see it up close, we have remotely controlled drones with cameras for that! Or just watch a damn documentary on the History Channel, on those rare moments when they SHOW history on the History Channel. The sub situation just smacks of senseless, self-destructive hedonism. It's like getting a raccoon for a pet, then lamenting that your new pet just crawled into your child's crib and snacked on her face for a while. Yes. It's a wild animal. This could easily have been anticipated and prevented if you just used some common sense.
Not really. I feel like it's not healthy for any community if all the people you don't like aren't there to offer their viewpoint. The more you build an echo chamber with no dissenting opinions, the more extreme it becomes and the less it's able to deal with things that clash with it's ideals. The less it's involved with things that clash with it's ideals.
-This does not include groups with completely bad faith arguments that are clearly racist bigots.
I don't mind discussing stuff with people who have different views from me, but on Reddit I would mostly type out a comment, imagine what kind of rude retort I'd get, and trash the draft. I remember some years back having a great back and forth with someone on nuclear power and actually changing my mind! But more recently it's just "you're wrong and dumb", no discussion. Ugh.
I'm still very new here, but it feels like Reddit used to, and I like it.
You’re right in a way, but I think you’re applying a narrow definition of “opinion” when I think most people ITT are thinking about “behaviours”.
Sure, it’s not great to exclude dissenting political opinions, the intolerance paradox being a notable exception. That said, I’m not here to discuss politics.
Say for example that some users will do anything for fake internet points - post anything, say anything, there behaviour is guided by the pursuit of karma and building some kind of following. Other users will do anything for engagement, whatever it takes to get others to engage with them including trolling. I’m happy enough for these types of users to find more rewarding platforms elsewhere. Note that’s different to excluding them, it’s just being a part of a place that isn’t fertile ground for their fixations.
So call me what you will but I just want a new "Reddit". I want a place where I can come up with a niche and find a place where people are talking about it. Whether it's experts or enthusiasts but I want to shared experience of "talking about X".
Exactly, well put. This is what reddit used to be, I hope this place can and will grow into just that in time. I see the potential. Everything starts with very little.
Thank you for caring about safety! I agree with you. I'll add my two cents about Rush: I find it interesting that he must have believed it was safe. I think I take solace that he died doing this, believing his own bullshit. I'd hate to think of him living his life when he sent others knowingly to their grave. If anyone deserved to suffer the consequences of his decisions, it is him.
No real way to know. If we assume technology keeps advancing at the exponential rate, we'll all be in the metaverse or bionic cyborgs or something. 100 years ago we had just finished WW1 where airplanes and tanks were a new technology. We went from telegraphs to near- instantaneous communications across the planet. We went from the old Fords to having self-driving cars. The internet was created and then eventually popularized and now we all have constant access to the internet in our pockets no matter where we go.
There are some things we can know for certain and others we can guesstimate. For example carbon emissions will have a noticeable impact in 100 years. The temperatures will be higher, there would have been some amount of sea level. Probably not enough to drown Miami but enough to cause serious problems for people all across the world. Our agricultural systems will be put under serious pressure as temperatures change and lower productivity in certain areas (and increase it in others).
I think the future will be good for countries like Canada / Sweden / Russia because global warming will more or less only help them. A lot of land will become better for agriculture / more habitable. Of course they will probably have to deal with some sort of refugee crisis from the global south.
That's of course assuming human society doesn't totally collapse / change because of nuclear war / some sort of terminator AI.
I think the future will be good for countries like Canada / Sweden / Russia because global warming will more or less only help them. A lot of land will become better for agriculture / more habitable. Of course they will probably have to deal with some sort of refugee crisis from the global south.
I don’t know much about this but I don’t think that this is how global warming works ?
I think this misunderstanding is why the phrase “climate change” is preferred because “global warming” makes it sound like everywhere will be a few degrees warmer which is not really the case.
My limited understanding is that the average global temperature may be warmer, but that really just means the ocean surface will be warmer, which creates more severe weather patterns.
The big problems with climate change seem to be quite nuanced, in a nutshell more severe and less predictable weather patterns. For example here in Western Australia maybe 20% of the state is arable land with predictable rainfall. Suppose next year there’s 50% less rainfall in that 20% of the state (it just rains somewhere else) - that’s a catastrophic problem. 50% of the productivity, 50% of the water flowing into dams for industrial and household use. Suppose the following year there’s 50% more rainfall than usual, falling on arable land where it hasn’t rained for a few years - it washes the dry topsoil away again destroying productivity.
There was an episode about water scarcity on doomsday watch podcast - fascinating & terrifying. There’s a phrase that stuck with me - if climate change is a shark then water scarcity is the teeth.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.