“A solarpunk polity would replace centralised forms of state government with decentralised confederations of self-governing communities […]”

Stalin notoriously loved checks notes heavily decentralizing government power akin to anarcho-communism.

“This politician writing against fascism is too fascist. This decentralized political system is too tankie. This politician ousting competent government officials he perceives as disloyal to his coup is juuuuust right.”

It’s good to see a politician who actually stays informed about these kinds of issues.

Jesus christ, chill the hell out. 💀

1. Who still writes letters anymore? Uh… A lot of people? Especially sitting senators to massive, multi-billion-dollar corporations? Would you have preferred they go on some shitty social media platform to write “ayo get your shit together fr fr”? Fellas, is it gay pretentious to use your position in government to bring attention to an issue? Have you never written a letter?

2. One of the reasons a neo-Nazi fuck just won the election is because these online spaces allow fascist rhetoric to run rampant. (Edit: probably also the general attitude that shuns literacy and intellectualism, like “writing a letter? how pretentious lmaooo”) You’re bringing up a nonsensical, extreme edge case to justify why action shouldn’t be taken in 99.999% of cases. I also as a Hindu (a religion I’m sure you actually understand or care about) get a facial swastika tattoo and then post that as my pfp to Steam. Definitely how that really works in the actual real world.

3. Writing coherently about an actual issue facing a platform like Steam actually shows that he’s more in-touch than most politicians. You sound deeply insecure.

This entire comment oozes intellectual dishonesty.

I don’t think you can block yourself. Maybe ask the Lemmy devs to implement it? Seriously, all I’m asking you to do is read to understand where your rights as an American citizen start and end; it’s for your own good.

A US senator can absolutely, unambiguously write to a private corporation asking them to more strictly moderate their platform. You’re just parroting “muh freeze peach” having zero idea where that starts and ends.

I highly recommend informing yourself where this boundary is; even if you particularly disagree with this senator, citing the First Amendment is the weakest possible argument here except among people who also don’t understand where the line is.

In the future, I highly recommend sourcing to Wikiquote instead. It’s a sister project of Wikipedia which sources its quotes so they can be independently verified, whereas Goodreads just operates on an ad populum approach of upvotes. It also for this reason tends to be more robust to error, and many more prominent figures have specific sections both for popular quotes that are known to be misattributed and for ones that are dubious but not currently falsifiable.

Fuck McKinsey.

The ultimatum is to finally ban Newsweek for the complete gutter trash it is.

Found a real source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79546-1

$10 says most death penalty state-sanctioned murder proponents would’ve proposed before 2022 (or even just before this verdict) that she was a clear-cut example of why it’s necessary because what kind of monster would definitely 100% verifiably beat their child to death? Fucking repugnant.

Before “Seward’s Folly” gets brought up, I invite you to watch this Premodernist video.

Grandma got run over by a dragon?

I’m also going to note that a ton of slaughterhouse workers are either undocumented or are the sorts of legal first-generation Latino immigrants Trump would still want to illegally deport. Even as a vegan who wants to see this industry die I can see how fucking disastrous that kind of shock would be for food prices. Even the change in public perception would be massive since it seems like the price of meat is one of the most significant barometers most meat-eaters use for how expensive groceries are.

A vastly better experience for less money? Never! /s

Thank you. I still have no idea why people make the ridiculous argument of “Well what will we do with all the living ones?” It’s either what you said, or they think there’s going to be an entire multi-billion-dollar industry supporting tens of thousands of cows for each individual of the last remaining non-vegans. It’s so disingenuous that they’ve either never thought it through or actually just don’t care.

It’s frustrating how arguments supporting the overwhelming status quo don’t need to hold up to scrutiny at all. Then the ones speaking out against it have mountains of credible data and airtight logical arguments that can just be dismissed out-of-hand by complete, nonsensical bullshit, and the general public will lap it up.

Oh, that’s super cool: you’ve actually made a claim that can be addressed. So now substantiate it. You say “the studies”, but ostensibly there are 1530 of them. Out of the 1530, how many say this? Because I imagine you’re saying you’ve at least checked some subset of them. Can you point to even a single specific one which Poore & Nemecek used in their analysis? More importantly, can you point to even a single one of those authors (or hell, anyone else) who issued any sort of commentary calling this paper out for this alleged “bad science”?

After all, the scientific process isn’t just being extremely credentialed; it isn’t just meta-analyzing over 1500 papers; it isn’t just standing up to the scrutiny of peer review prior to publication: it’s knowing that at any time, someone else can read your paper, say “that’s wrong/dubious, actually”, demonstrate that objectively, and then publish that information. This is an extremely economically important topic with an industry who would be champing at the bit to publish a paper debunking this one, the work has been discussed in international news, and it’s published in one of the most prestigious academic journals, so clearly it should have undergone some level of public scrutiny.

Clearly you as someone with (obviously) literally no background in this field can point out such an egregious error, so why hasn’t any actual credible scientist? Or better yet, why haven’t you compiled and submitted this information for publication?

Shhh, don’t call it “haptic feedback” or they might make them flat, unmoving buttons that have a vibration motor behind them.

Removed by mod

Okay, so do what I asked. If you’ve said something substantive, thought-out, and falsifiable in the past, it should be trivial for you to copy-paste that here.

Every time you show up to talk about this paper, you just say it “misuses LCA” and then never elaborate because you don’t actually understand anything about the paper. See where the authors discuss their methodology? Please go there and point out how exactly it “misuses LCA”. Make a pointed, falsifiable criticism of the paper, please.