Yeah but this is a “needle in a haystack” problem that chatgpt and AI in general are actually very useful for, ie. Solutions that are hard to find but easy to verify. Issues like this are hard to find as it requires combing through your code , config files and documentation to find the problem, but once you find the solution it either works or it doesn’t.

Fuck it I’ll take the down votes, he’s right. Ukraine is losing this war and stand no chance of winning back there lost territory, barring western countries putting troops on the ground. The longer the war goes on, the more territory the Russians gain and the more Ukraine’s manpower gets drained. The only people who stand to benefit from the war continuing is the Russians and western defense contractors.

Obviously fuck Russia for starting this needless war but you have to understand when to cut your losses and stop pouring money and lives into a losing quagmire.

Most of the ‘electricity’ emissions on that nice pie graph isn’t joe bob’s playstation, it’s industrial power.

Again please cite some sources and look at the actual data. Adding in electricity and looking at end use does up industrial but only up to 30% . It ups commercial and residential far more to 31%, your right though most of the electricity isn’t going towards joes PlayStation it’s going towards heating and cooling joes house.

Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings also increase substantially when emissions from electricity end-use are included, due to the relatively large share of electricity use mostly building related (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; lighting; and appliances) in these sectors

Again personal consumption choices have an effect on this, even barring the choice of where to live the amount of energy needed to heat and cool a home goes up as the size of the building increases. Heating and cooling a large detached single family home is way less efficient then heating and cooling a small apartment. Like a big truck no one’s forcing you to get a big house and the choice you make has climate impacts.

I agree auto companies are largely responsible for the mess we’re in with transportation, but the solution isn’t to just put our hands up and say we need to hold them accountable, that won’t happen in the current environment. We all need to make the personal choice to drive less, and take more public transit. If public transit numbers go up then politicians will actually start prioritizing it and improvements will be made which will cause more people to take transit causing a positive feedback loop. If traffic numbers go down as well the government won’t have to spend money on adding another lane to the freeway and would save on road maintenance due to cars wearing them down less, allowing more money to be available for transit and adding to the feedback loop.

To kickstart that feedback loop though we’ll need people to choose to take a more inconvenient transport option at the beginning, and you aren’t going to get people to make that choice by saying there actions don’t matter and that it’s all the corporations fault so you driving a mile to CVS is fine.

Could you please give some sources instead of pulling numbers out of thin air. Because the numbers don’t seem to align with what your saying since industry only accounts for 23 % of emissions, so unless holding companies responsible includes completely eliminating them and there emissions you aren’t going to get a 20-30 % reduction in emissions. That 20-30% your talking about can actually be obtained if Americans just stopped driving and flying. Hell we can get almost double that “measly 1.5%” by Americans just driving 10% less then they are. Cars and air travel are emitting just as much as those evil corporations everyone likes to blame, and to stop climate change we’ll need to rein in both. Thats just cars, it doesn’t account for other consumer choices like eating meat and fast fashion that also have huge impacts.

Your missing the big one that most people don’t want to hear, eat less / no meat. That’s about the biggest decision your average person can make that will make the most impact, going vegetarian is about equivalent to not driving but most Americans need to drive, they don’t need to eat meat.

Corporations aren’t forcing you to buy a bigger house, a bigger car, to eat meat or to fly across the country regularly, those are personal consumption choices that are driving climate change. You can blame the corporations for pushing you to consume with advertising or not doing there best to minimize the impact of that consumption but fundamentally there’s no way to make a carbon neutral meat burger that the average person could consume regularly. It’s not just corporations that benefit from ignoring climate costs, the average consumer does as well

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

Lemmy sorting is still interest based if your not scrolling through /all , it’s just that those are declared interests, you subscribe to the tennis community, as opposed to inferred interests, the algorithm figured out you like tennis based on your watching habits. It’s still curated it’s just self curated instead of algorithmically curated.

So I guess you could say it stops at how the interests are compiled and whether the interest was given explicitly by the user but then you get into how a user understands certain actions like likes. Do people like something to just give feedback to the poster, then it shouldn’t be used at all. Do they like something because they want to boost it and have their wider community to see it, then the algorithm can take that into account when giving it to friends / followers. Do they like something because they want to see more of it, then the algorithm can use that information for recommending things that user will see. My guess is people use it as some combination of all 3, and as long as the social media tells its users at the beginning that the heart button is all 3 they could get away with saying there algorithm is explicit while not changing much.

It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.

Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.

No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

• This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

• This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

• It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

• It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

• It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.

It is a different level of scale, mastodon has about 1 million users spread over a bunch of instances. Threads has over 200 million users on one instance. also due to the network nature of social media the amount of connections and messages sent through those connections can scale exponentially with the amount of users.

That would work if we invested as much into public transit as into cars. This goes back to designing cities for public transit instead of cars. If we did that with the money we currently are putting into cars we could have high frequency metro lines where inner city interstate / highway routes and high speed rail for inter city interstate/highway routes along with frequent bus service in the cities/towns on the lines. We think public transit is inherently slow and unreliable but that’s because we never invest enough money to make it fast and reliable.

llms suck because they steal content and are unreliable since they don’t link back to sources

Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article

“Ars technica sold out”

I feel more comfortable walking around them, they never blow stop lights /signs, always go the speed limit, never honk (except when parking I guess) and are very patient. If they see a pedestrian they just stop instead of creeping forward making you question whether to walk in front of them and then getting mad when you won’t cross in front of their still moving car like people.

I’m not denying that hamas has some very reactionary and horrible beliefs, but you can find statements like these in documents for the Taliban and Iranian government, that doesn’t mean that we should have a war to eliminate them because as we learned from Afghanistan that doesn’t work.

These statements are a reflection of legitimate anger at Israel through the lens of Islam. This anger stems from the lack of peaceful political options that Palestinians have for redress against Israel. Israel funded Hamas because they knew the jihad talk would scare western audiences with quotes like this and discredit this anger. If you allow Palestinians political options to solve there issues and a hope for a peaceful path to statehood then they wouldnt support Hamas and the movement would fizle out. If you keep bombing Gaza though the anger will only mount and the violence will continue, whether through Hamas or some other organization willing to fight back.

You can’t eliminate this anger with bombs unless you commit genocide, so how do you propose to “eliminate” Hamas?

This isn’t people voting against her for not being pro-israel. AIPAC doesn’t run attack ads based off that because they know most people don’t care and half of those who do care are on the other side. Most of there money and advertising goes to emphasizing other faults with the candidate that people do care about, for Bowman and Bush this time it was about not voting for the infrastructure bill with no context as to why. This isn’t a reflection of a silent majority of Israel support, it’s a reflection of what money can do in politics.

This idea that Hamas is the only problem and they just need to be “eliminated” is so short sighted and shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. Do you really think that if Israel kills every member of Hamas, Israel can just leave and Gaza will be free and never attack Israel, because that is pure fantasy.

Hamas is a symptom of the underlying issues not the cause. The cause is cycles of assymetric violence, deprivation, and dispossession caused by Israel. Until those issues are solved there will always be orphans of the last conflict with no hope for a better future willing to commit acts of violence against the state they blame for there horrid conditions. There will also always be some organization, if not Hamas then possibly something worse (Islamic jihad), to direct and amplify that anger.

This also assumes Hamas can be eliminated, which is a big assumption. They’ve already started doing guerilla attacks in the previously “cleared” north. Support for Hamas has gone up since the war started and you can’t kill a political movement with bombs, the u.s. learned that with Afghanistan. The only way is to remove the supporters of that movement, ethnic cleansing, which is Israels true endgame, because they know as soon as Hamas is eliminated another organization will just take its place.

Couldn’t you join a party and then you get to vote for the parties leader ? Don’t see much of a difference between that and the primary system other then you have to officially join the party, which I’m not sure what that entails, as opposed to just registering to vote for it.

I don’t think this would have much of an effect. Even your average democrat these days doesn’t give a fuck about homeless people. Even if they do it’s probably very low on there list of concerns, even progressives would probably care more about his Gaza stance than this. No one can imagine they could be homeless until they are.