Spzi

@Spzi@lemm.ee

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨fossil fuels⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  While you guys kind of have a point, the specific argument you put forward is rather weak. Transportation accounts for an almost negligible part of the overall emissions of a product. Bulk freight cargo is super efficient. If you want to moan about transportation emissions, look at single people sitting in tons of steel making short trips.

  The point you still have is that emissions are caused in the process of satisfying a demand. Consumers do have a partial responsibility. However I would object in that the problem cannot be solved from the consumer’s position. It is a market failure. Markets have no incentive to internalize their externalities, that has to come from a different place; e.g. politics. Carbon pricing is an interesting mechanic, since it utilizes that same argument for good.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨fossil fuels⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don’t think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don’t care or cannot afford. I’m afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.

  It’s also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨fossil fuels⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme’s source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like “100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions”, but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.

  What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China’s coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by “using” their “products”, e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.

  So yes, the downvoted guy saying “Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions” is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of “journalism” and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.

  All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Or we could do metric time⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Eventually, things settle at almost perfect ratios. Everything between creates some kind of friction.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨this one goes out to the arts & humanities⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?

  Doesn’t have to be that random, but can be. Here, I wrote: “throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions”.

  The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.

  Ok, but isn’t that rather an argument that it can eventually be mastered by a machine? They excel at applying structure and method, with far more accuracy (or the precise amount of desired randomness) and speed than we can.

  The idea of brute forcing art comes down to philosophical questions. Do we have some immaterial genie in us, which cannot be seen and described by science, which cannot be recreated by engineers? Engeniers, lol. Is art something which depends on who created it, or does it depend on who views it?

  Either way what I meant is that it is thinkable that more computation power and better algorithms bring machines closer to being art creators, although some humans surely will reject that solely based on them being machines. Time will tell.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨this one goes out to the arts & humanities⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That depends on things we don’t know yet. If it can be brute forced (throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions), then yes, “lots of work” can be an equivalent.

  If it does not, we have a mystery to solve. Where does this magic come from? It cannot be broken down into data and algorithms, but still emerges in the material world? How? And what is it, if not dependent on knowledge stored in matter?

  On the other hand, how do humans come up with good, meaningful art? Talent Practice. Isn’t that just another equivalent of “lots of work”? This magic depends on many learned data points and acquired algorithms, executed by human brains.

  There also is survivor bias. Millions of people practice art, but only a tiny fraction is recognized as artists (if you ask the magazines and wallets). Would we apply the same measure to computer generated art, or would we expect them to shine in every instance?

  As “good, meaningful art” still lacks a good, meaningful definition, I can see humans moving the goalpost as technology progresses, so that it always remains a human domain. We just like to feel special and have a hard time accepting humiliations like being pushed out of the center of the solar system, or placed on one random planet among billion others, or being just one of many animal species.

  Or maybe we are unique in this case. We’ll probably be wiser in a few decades.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⌛⌛⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This ambiguity is what I had in mind when I read “let me be clear”. Though now I get it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨xkcd #2908: Moon Armor Index⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  There’s a famous hill-top cemetery in the city, and sure enough I saw basically all of my classmates there too

  That was an unexpected dark turn. Glad you live to tell their story!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can you help me with my JavaScript issue?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.

  This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨FediForum, an online unconference for discussing the future of the Fediverse, 19-20 March⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  From the title, I had a question and found the answer in the FAQ:

  What’s an unconference?

  An unconference is a conference in which the participants – rather than the organizers – decide which sessions happen each day and on which topics. In the many years we have been organizing unconferences, we have found that for complex subjects like the Fediverse, attendees get more value (and fun!) out of unconferences than from traditional conferences. Sounds disorganized? It did to us, too, until we actually experienced our first one. So don’t worry, it will be fine :-)

  Here are some suggestions for how to prepare for an unconference.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨xkcd #221: Random Number (9 Nov 2007)⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s already pretty cool! It surely does generate very random numbers. I still think you can take it a step – or a random number of steps, hah! – further by repeating the process a random number of times! Maybe this way we can reach maximum randomness. Probably need to reroll the number until it’s big enough for that.

  I would also check if the result is 4. If it’s 4, it should be discarded. 4 is not an actual random number but a joke random number from a comic.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨xkcd #173: Movie Seating (20 Oct 2006)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  And group people based on how loud their snacks are.

  Also, am I the only one hating that person who keeps talking how the seating is suboptimal while everyone else tries to watch the movie?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do some websites have a "Continue Reading" button?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Just a guess: to prevent bots from scraping the full content?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Six months after the initial reddit surge (graphs)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I find the plateau quite puzzling (lemmy.world, but the total looks very similar):

  Image

  There was quite a steep increase, and then it suddenly stopped.

  I would rather expect it to slow down, than to stop that abruptly.

  We’re looking at a fairly large group of people making a decision to create an account on Lemmy. There are plenty of reasons to expect it to be fuzzy. Even if they all responded to one particular event in time, some would have done so immediately, others the next day, few more even later.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Six months after the initial reddit surge (graphs)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, that’s true, but the number probably actually declined for a similar reason.

  Some created multiple accounts, others tried multiple platforms. Some were happy with lemmy and stayed, others did not.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Scientist Discover How to Convert CO2 into Powder That Can Be Stored for Decades⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Thus wouldn’t it be feasible to push that energy back in or back out using methods that may use the same amount of energy, though yield far greater results?

  Yes, it’s possible to improve efficiency, up to a limit set by thermodynamics. In this video, a scientist (granted, astrophysicist) talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs

  Even if we built a 100% efficiency direct air capture system (which is impossible) to get down to 450 PPM CO2 levels by 2050, which is frankly too much already, and even in the more optimistic emission scenario – all of that still demands roughly 5% of the planet’s entire electricity production to be diverted to these machines.

  While capture is necessary, it will physically not suffice. We have to stop emitting more; keep fossil fuels in the ground.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bring Karma back (if you want, no hard feelings pls), but without toxicity (maybe)!⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Right, it does display a karma value in the user profile page (not my own, but for others). Regardless from which instance that user is.

  It does not display user karma in threads, regardless on which instance. Does your experience differ?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bring Karma back (if you want, no hard feelings pls), but without toxicity (maybe)!⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lemmy.ml Karma Calculator

  Display Lemmy.ml Karma.

  Seems to not be so useful outside of lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bring Karma back (if you want, no hard feelings pls), but without toxicity (maybe)!⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Reddit was using karma for a long time and people stayed. The exodus happened when reddit announced charging for using their API, and everything that came along. Karma was no significant part of that story.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bring Karma back (if you want, no hard feelings pls), but without toxicity (maybe)!⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  When people “farm” for fake internet pointe by appealing to the oppinions of everyone else it leads to people just expressing one “right” (popular) oppinion.

  We have the same result already, for several reasons. One is, we do have karma within threads.

  Another is, people will get backlash for voicing the “wrong” opinion even if there is no point system. People happily reply to correct someone.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fediverse link-aggregator PieFed launches in beta test⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  In any case, performance is just one factor. For a FOSS project to be successful long term it needs contributions from other developers and with the massive pool of Python developers there are, hopefully I’ll be getting some help soon. Also along those lines I have deliberately chosen:

  to code as simply and stupidly as possible, to make it accessible to most skill levels.
  No complicated frameworks, fancy algorithms, or esoteric design patterns. Model View Controller, baby.
  No frontend build process or tool chain (vanilla JS only. No npm).
  Few third party dependencies, only Redis and Postgresql. Mostly.
  

  All this makes setting up an initial development environment, finding the bit you want to change and testing it out fairly quick and easy.

  Sounds very wise to make it as accessible as possible. And you basically get super maintainable code as a side product!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨xkcd #2877: Fever⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That might be the unfunniest xkcd I’ve seen so far. It pretty much reads like a table “things which are so and so hot”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Amazon's Union-busting training video⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  “Vulnerable to organizing”, lmao. Yes, they put quite some effort into reframing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨xkcd #2876: Range Safety⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Is that in reference to the recent Chinese crash?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That wasn’t clear to me. I thought this was about siloed lemmy instances, hence I talked about that.

  I don’t see how their comment makes sense from your perspective. Can you explain? According to that theory, where did the exploding-heads people go, joining the people who can’t handle living in a mixed society in real life? Do you mean they stopped using the internet or how does that help to explain the observation?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m trying, that’s why I’m asking!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I guess both can be true. Maybe you have a better approach.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The interesting part is not your personal opinion but the reasoning behind it.

  I have reasons for my position and layed them out. You disagree, and showed that much. I still have my reasons and can’t know yours, so your comment did not change anyones mind or advance the conversation in any way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ruud is categorically suppressing or deleting certain viewpoints or speakers? Or some other Lemmy admin is doing so? Can you give an example?

  It’s fairly easy to get banned on lemmygrad for having a (perceived) liberal attitude, to name the obvious example.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Where did the exploding-heads people go?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  ‘people who can’t handle living in a mixed society’

  That’s … both sides, all sides, isn’t it? Specifically for exploding-heads, there were numerous and loud calls on multiple instances to defederate from them.