Singapore is more fucked up than aspirational if you ask me. It might look nice but it’s a capitalist place that totally misses the spirit of solarpunk.

Check out “radiative sky cooling”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRnEm-B3AI

There might be some way to do something with this.

Dave!?

Save a slap for the leap seconds creator.

Or, we could collectively realize time is but an illusion and transcend this silly problem.

You gotta throw fling your feces at them.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site.

Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.

I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”

Sometimes I use the term “psychopathic hoarder class” when referring to this group of people.

Larry Finger, your work has made a significant positive impact on my life and I’m sure many others. Thank you.

Now can you work on a driver to allow communication between the living and the dead?

USA! USA! USA!!11!!

That’s like half of the training I got to get my A+ certificate to work on personal computers.

I was shocked about this, I’d assumed it was well trained trauma doctors in the ambulance with you at your most critical moment.

Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.

To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.

I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.

If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.

Why do Windows users feel entitled to the free labor of others.

I don’t think open source developers should feel obligated to chase after “normal users”, they should just make great software. Linux is arguably the most successful OS that has ever existed, if it’s not dominant in one specific shrinking sector is that the worst thing in the world?

Linux (+ everything needed for a desktop) has been a great desktop system for 20+ years, most difficulties aren’t the fault of Linux, they’re the fault of vendors failing to support and/or Microsoft throwing up barriers to competition.

You’re right, to some insufficient degree, but that’s like reducing your meth habit.

It’s not possible to produce the amount of meat needed to feed our massive population while treating animals humanely.

There are really two options to deal with this:

1. Most humans in the world become vegan – sounds great but it’s not gonna happen

2. Reduce our population to sustainable numbers (by eliminating the driver of the population explosion, i.e. fossil energy) – maybe also not gonna happen

Edit: What (do I think) will happen? We’ll continue as we are now as hundreds of billions of animals are tortured until our civilization collapses. This will happen because we were all brought up under a state and told that defending ourselves, our communities, our animals, is wrong and illegal.

My thoughts about this

Anarcho-communism (and similar ideologies) isn’t really about everyone being equal, that’s a silly goal that would take enforcement and calculations, it’s not practical. Instead, anarcho-communism is a different way of living based on cooperation rather than exploitation and doing what is needed for people rather than what a few rich owners want.

You and a “lazy” person won’t necessarily have the same outcome. A person unwilling to even pick up after themselves or contribute would still be guaranteed housing, food, and health care, but that’s about it. You on the other hand could work to have a nicer place or acquire things, so long as you aren’t getting them exploiting others or common resources. If you build a nice chair the anarcho-fuzz isn’t gonna come and take it to split it amongst the community.

The thinking around “laziness” needs to change. A person unwilling to do even the absolute minimum might be called lazy, but A person unwilling to trade their time for money isn’t a bad thing. It’s not the “lazy” people that wipe out species, start wars, and cause climate change.