I’ve seen it fairly often by now; many people seem to enjoy posts with moderately long comment sections. I believe this is what contributes to a more wholesome experience.
Similar to how groups meet a natural breaking point when they grow too big and people cannot know each other anymore, I imagine huge comment sections create a sense of being meaningless and unheard. This discourages sensitive voices, and may appeal more to people who don’t care anyways, which isn’t exactly a great attitude for social encounters.
I can further imagine large comment sections create FOMO for the reader, and can overall be more stressful, which leads to aggression.
Just guesses and impressions. No idea if true. Also no clue how to foster that environment in a growing network.
Agree to everything but the doom. Yes, most people will only give 1 chance to a platform, but we haven’t churned through most people yet. Most people are yet to honor Lemmy with their first visit, at some point in the future. We will be better prepared than ever. This wil be true for a long while. So I think we should make (reasonable) haste, but nothing is lost yet. In the long run, we’re still growing.
This place bans you for “not being nice”, which is an arbitrary metric that changes from mod to mod and let’s all be honest, being nice is exhausting.
Lemmy is many places (individual instances with individual moderation policies). If it’s important to you, you can find a server which matches your expectations, or host your own.
Not sure if social media in general has failed. That particular point can be solved at the community level.
Create or join a community which by it’s guidelines restricts posting paywalled or otherwise bad content. Which explicitly encourages posting “liberated” content. Have moderation. Problem solved. Moderators will remove all which you dislike. All that remains is the solution you want.
If the rate of 57% less each year remains constant, we’re down to 10.6% after 4 years, and 1.11% after 8 years. So logging could pretty much stop this decade. Again unrealistic, since first chunks are always easier than last bits. Just trying to highlight how much this is.
the environment minister not being the one nicknamed “Mr. Chainsaw”, and instead is one of the most respected and accomplished environmentalists in the world
That’s such a relief to hear, thanks for sharing.
I just glanced over her Wiki and am happy to see she’s a person with a cause, rooted in civil rights and passion.
getting a job so they can keep their quality of life up from being homeless!
And paying taxes while having that job. So even from a cold hearted financial perspective, this might be one of the cheapest ways to deal with the problem
Sorry, maybe I was too quick to jump on the hype train. Could you elaborate what’s wrong with it? This might also be interesting to read spelled out for others.
There is a wide range of renewable sources: Hydro, geothermal, biogas, different kinds to use wind and solar. I can understand why you would want diversification across that range. So that if one source is affected by circumstances, the others can continue delivering.
But what sense does it make to diversify between renewable and non-renewable, if you meant that? It’s certainly possible to lead this principle ad absurdum. Should we diversify between tested and untested methods, between cheap and expensive, between safe and dangerous?
we don’t know what tomorrow holds.
That’s a reason to diversify between different renewable methods, distribute them across different regions. If you really meant we should include fossil fuels, you might need to make that point explicit, because it is not self-explaining.