Remember, it’s a cloud messenger, not a secure messenger. It’s cool to have all chats on every device, but by default, they are unencrypted. I message there, too, but only nonsense.
I’m not saying Telegram is perfect by a long shot, and they’ve made some questionable decisions around crypto and paid-for services, but it grinds my gears when people suggest that it’s “unencrypted”.
E2E encryption means that yours and the other person’s device are the only ones that have the keys for decryption and are typically the only places where chats are stored.* The conversation is secured end-to-end.
Telegram has the master copies of your chats on their servers to enable certain extra functionality that you can’t get with E2E messengers, but it does not mean that the data is stored or transmitted unencrypted. The data at rest is encrypted and it’s encrypted when it travels to and from your device.
Sure, there’s the argument that governments could compel Telegram to hand over the keys to your chats, but considering that the platform is outright banned in more than one country with questionable regimes, it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t give in to such demands. Honestly, if your government wanted copies of your chats so badly it’d be far easier for them to go through you and your device directly, and then no amount of E2E encryption is going to help you.
All that said, Telegram does actually have E2E encryption in the form of Secret Chats which, while having no method of backup, allows you to have two very different conversations with the same person and provides a level of plausible deniability that E2E only platforms cannot.
*Until you or the other party chooses to export a plain-text backup and store it on Google Drive where it’s far easier for governments to subpoena. I’m looking at you, WhatsApp.
It’s fast, supports sending large uncompressed files, has fun stickers and great UI
It’s a great messenger really, just not E2E encrypted. I’d happily use Signal too but most people don’t care about the E2E encryption advantage and prefer Tele
Someone out there has been collecting the best keygens with songs and they don’t even know it. And now their job is to release a compilation album on bandcamp or something.
It’s expensive and has only the advantage of catching CO2, while trees have more than just that. Produces O2, Cooling the near surroundings, are a save heaven for many species and therefore increases biodiversity, filters the air and soil, also makes the soil more healthy and probably many other reasons.
Humans really are weird. Trying to replace a perfectly fine bio-machinery that developed over Thousands of years with their own steel junk. I dont see why anybody would prefer that gadget over a tree.
I assume they mean how long many old growth forests have been growing (though even then thousands of years is on the younger end), not the time it took for trees to evolve.
Most plants would die because they rely on CO2 for photosynthesis.
Many sea animals would die. Oceans absorb CO2 which forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) in water. Oceans are slightly alkaline due to dissolved salts (bicarbonate and carbonate) and the carbonic acid from the absorption helps to create a stable pH. Many sea animals are highly adapted to a specific pH and would die if the ocean got either too acidic or too alkaline, so they are pretty doomed in either case.
Many humans would die because agriculture would collapse. Also breathing pure oxygen over a long period of time would be very bad because of oxygen toxicity. Yeah, pure oxygen is toxic for humans lol
Land animals, I’m not so sure, but I assume most of them would die too.
Your question isn’t entirely a hypothetical - this happened at the dawn of time, when photosynthetic life forms first evolved. First, it won’t ever happen again, no matter how good we get at scooping CO2 from the atmosphere. Second, the result is theoretically catastrophic for aerobic life forms, but it’s also a negative feedback loop, meaning it self corrects.
It’s expensive and has only the advantage of catching CO2
It doesn’t even do that well. Algae have short lifespans and when they decompose, the CO2 will go right back into the atmosphere. It’s the same reason you can’t reasonably capture CO2 with small plants like grasses, nor does the carbon inside you count as captured. The reason trees “capture CO2” is because trees live for a long time and wood decomposes very slowly, and therefore keep its carbon locked in the wood for a long time. The point of capturing carbon is you take it out of circulation for as long as possible.
There are ways to have algae capture carbon, but they are fairly involved (read: very expensive) processes whose scalability is still uncertain. Certainly not a tank in the street.
I was always under the impression that plants chemically convert CO2 and some other stuff to glucose (C6-H12-O6), right? In that case, the algae would still help, wouldnt they?
It helps if and only if the glucose stays as glucose and is not metabolized. Wood is a good application of this, as its cellulose fibers are made of glucose, in a form that is very stable and can stay locked away for a long time (especially if the tree is alive as it does not metabolize the glucose in its own wood and has anti-predation adaptations that actively guard it against other organisms). However, if the glucose decomposes, i.e. is metabolized, it is converted either directly to CO2 or into other compounds that eventually end up as CO2, essentially returning the captured carbon back to the atmosphere.
Humans really are weird. Trying to replace a perfectly fine bio-machinery that developed over Thousands of years with their own steel junk. I dont see why anybody would prefer that gadget over a tree.
Can you plant a tree capable of capturing the same amount of CO2 as those algae in that small a space? How about “refilling” the tree if it happens to die?
Society doesn’t have to lock itself to a single solution for countless varied problems. If we’re talking about a long, empty walkway, or a park, then trees are a great solution. If we’re talking about a small space that must be kept free of obstructions, such as a bus stop, then a sack or box of phytoplankton is much better suited.
We are in a parasitic relationship with capitalism. Capitalism constantly extracts from life and the environment. When life begin to limit captialism, capitalism will go to great ends to remove life. Capitalism is not sustainable, nor is it naturally occurring. Abolish this evil system.
How about we only have some capitalism. Let’s only allow less slavery and habitat destruction in exchange for us all to be subservient to billionaires.
Trees offer real world benefits of carbon reduction, temperature reduction, shade for people, the psychological benefits that trees offer, some limited wildlife habitat, and they do it without much outside help. They grow themselves with decent maintenance.
But you have to build and maintain this tank. What carbon was used to do so, and what maintenance will it need. Can it offset its own cost? It offers no benefits to wildlife, no shade, no temperature reduction.
Yeah, trees leave leaf litter and can heave sidewalks with roots, but given that neither system is perfect, there’s no reason to argue that boxes of algae are better.
Why do we need to argue which is better? In some places, beautification isn’t really practical, but you can still stick these around. They don’t look hard to install or uninstall, unlike trees.
I would hate to see a tree actually replaced by one these. But no one but the meme is saying that is the plan.
I think we have reached the limit for how much we should “improve” and replace nature, if there’s no room for trees we should make room instead of accomodating yet another industrial solution to a problem created by industry in the first place.
Lemmy comments are so refreshing compared to Reddit comments. If you’re not posting within the first few minutes on a hot reddit thread, hope you enjoy being buried underneath a few thousand other comments.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.