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.
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.
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.
So why is this? The answers so far seem unsatisfactory, since things like phones, SUVs and car-centric infrastructure are on the rise in other countries as well, without that staggering rise in deaths.
I spent about 3 minutes browsing the report linked in the article, and am rather less confident than before. For example, on pages 25 and 26 they look at the share of SUVs in deaths and sales. And while both figures are rising, the bodycount from non-SUVs has gone up as well.
The answer is probably not a single factor anyways. Can anyone make a more or less informed guess what might explain the US being so bad?
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.
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.
Treat your volunteers well, or why should they continue volunteering?
Kernel maintainers have plenty of other opportunities.
I don’t know if they are volunteering or being paid. The other person said they are being paid.
Either way, no one deserves being talked down to like that, even if they made a mistake. It’s a matter of respect and self-respect. And as a skilled person like a kernel developer, it should be trivially easy to find other work in a more appropriate environment.
That being said, maybe I’m missing something. Torvalds has been known to be like that for a long time (although that seems to be over now). And still, Linux has been developed over decades. So apparently, skilled people flocked around Torvalds, or maybe rather his project. Not entirely sure why, but I’m taking it as a hint I might be missing something.