This is part of a larger UK campaign to make people feel bad about energy usage while Starmer is filling increasingly large amounts of UK infrastructure with AI stuff that requires 100x the amount of power.
I just stopped buying stuff..I buy food, that's it. my garbage has gone from 3 bags biweekly, 2etal and 3 cardboard down to maybe 2 garbage, half a metal one and maybe 1 cardboard.
it's amazing how much garbage they force on us when we buy companies junk
sometimes there's more packaging costs then product...it's absurd.
If everyone turned off their smartphones for a day it would account for less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet in that day.
If you have a fridge in your house it’s likely using almost 100 times more power than your smartphone. Your heating or air conditioning is using far more power. The steel industry, agricultural industry, transportation, are all pumping out greenhouse gasses at a rate that using electronics is negligible.
AI is becoming another one of those industries, but if everyone turned off their personal devices, they would still need to get up, go to work, which would likely use AI, because they need to buy groceries and pay rent and keep their home powered, and capitalism churns.
Being outraged at the systems around us is a good thing, pointing the outrage toward people living daily lives while wealthy corporations and people do everything in their power to do as little as possible for social good while farming maximum personal benefit, power, and profit is not.
I agree with you. Most energy comes from renewables these days, and your wi-fi usage is a negligible amount in the scale of things. How about going after corporate energy waste like AI instead?
It currently is negligible. Depending on how long this hype train lasts it may stop being negligible. Coal is on the decline. Private jets and careless billionaires are growing problems, but not as fast as ai.
All need handling one way or another.
Do you have a source for the streaming v AI power consumption thing?
I don't want to be an ass, just genuinely curious.
When I run jellyfin and stream something from my home server, it draws 35 watts. If I run an ai model on my GPU, it draws way more than that.
they make sure to shift the blame, to make sure the system remains unchanged and people who are profiting from what is basically omniside keep profiting from killing the planet and everyone in it.
If the internet is demonised with enough propaganda about it being full of porn and bad for the environment, while steadily becoming more and more difficult to access, then the British public will stop knowing about the atrocities Kid Starver is spending their tax money on.
Protesting anything the government disaproves of is a criminal offense and journalists have already been imprisoned over reporting too accurately on the Palestinian genocide.
I get the feeling the internet sanctions and propaganda will just keep coming now till the government can control the narrative and we will always have been at war with East Asia.
It's obviously bad that we ever did, but it's not something that we currently do. It stopped a while back, and is probably partly why Israel has become very hostile with Labour/Starmer as of late.
Did they actually stop? Yeah it seems like the UK is further along the process of disengaging but our connections to the genocide of palestinians run so deep it is hard to fathom the US government listening to its people and stopping arming Israel.
one viral AI avatar or “Barbie Box” image can consume enough energy to fully charge an electric car several times.
A Model 3 battery is 200,000-300,000 kiloJoules.
Absolute worst case for an image, even taking very extreme estimates and amortizing out all the training, is like 30 kJ. Maybe 70 kJ for a slop video that takes under a minute to render, which is on the order of browsing Lemmy on a laptop for a bit. For reference, a local generation with FLUX dev on my 3090 is 2 kJ per image, and that's relatively inefficient.
I'm just saying, that is a bad comparison, as EVs take an absolute truckload of electricity to run.
oh fuck off with that logic, a message needs a platform to be heard. Yelling at the top of your lungs about the axe-murderer isnt going to get you anywhere if you're in his basement with the bodies. Get on his roof and yell
"But the trees used to cut that poster and the glue used to put it up, along with the lighting needed to make it visible at a distance would incur unforgiveable costs on this planet..."
It IS a poster with a backlight that was already there.
This isn't BP throwing out a million dollar PR campaign to improve their image after polluting the ocean, this is a university putting out a PSA to drum interest about sustainable ways of using our digital devices.
They printed a poster and rented an illuminated poster board that was already there to do so. It's the same contradiction as using a diesel train to attend Friday for Future's rally. Sometimes you have to just have to use the most practical medium to get your message out
What exactly is this PSA telling people? The message seems to just be "screens use electricity, and we're doing vague sustainability research around that".
I think this could have been a spam email and it would have achieved the same outcome. Not to mention that electricity is getting greener by the day, and personal device usage is such a small portion of electricity use it might as well be zero
Well I typed in the link to their page, and it's.... nothing. They're literally not saying anything, just talking about some bs initatives with their corporate sponsors. Yes, fine, this is silly nonsense
If this university hadnt bought this meaningless advert it would have a tiny reduction in the demand for advertising potentially leading to less always lit billboards being made. So no, they dont get a pass for it.
I think a fairer argument is to see how many people actually reduced their screen time. Then, see if that offset the run time of this ad. In that case, this sign doesn't get a pass because we all know the answer to that question.
Watts per hour is not a unit of energy or power, do you mean watt-hours? Neither of those numbers seems right if so. And the amount of energy consumed by a prompt will vary wildly based on the size of the model, your hardware, what your prompt is, etc. My point is that, with 2 identical prompts on 2 identical models, one done in a specialized datacenter and one done at home, the one at home will probably use more power because it's less efficient. Therefore, if we are concerned with how much power AI datacenters are using, switching from datacenters to home computing is clearly not a solution.
Updated version of the "turn the water off while you're brushing your teeth" ads in the 80s/90s. If you can afford ad spend, you're a bigger problem than the people targeted by it.
Data centers use massive amounts of power. Reducing that power consumption would be a net positive on the environment.
That said, looking at the site, I can't see anything that suggests they've done any research into that. Instead they seem to be promoting their research into keeping kids safe online, with the only mention of the OSA being a short description in their recent June report with no comment about anything to do with it's obvious shortcomings.
The uk government keeps giving them renewable energy subsidies because trees can regrow but ignore the fact that they cut down trees the other side of the world to burn them here. It releases all the carbon stored in the trees into the atmosphere and then they capture a small percentage of it back and pretend to be the good guys.
If my goal was to try and damage the organization of groups looking to drive environmental initiatives, this is what I'd do. One of the things, anyways.
It’s cheaper and easier to make people feel bad than it is to take reasonable steps to actually solve our environmental problems. Plus, this option lets you be smug and judgmental.
The first think is crossed out because you're not supposed to think. You're supposed to feel... feel bad about using your phone. It's like it's designed to turn any opinion against any other opinion.
Honestly the biggest thing I think you could do (other than dying) is quitting animal consumption, but 90% of people can’t be bothered to make that simple change and would rather drivel on and on in endless debates about their sudden “health problems” and cultural norms that conveniently don’t allow for them to stop.
He's a young YouTuber who started out talking about atheism and became a vegan and a big advocate for veganism and was very outspoken about switching to veganism etc. but a year or two into his journey he revealed that due to health reasons he can't stay on a vegan diet so he's reintroduced meat into his diet and he will try and do it as ethically possible but for health reasons he needs to consume animal products.
I glanced at the ai summary as I can't watch something right now and this 'pre-existing health condition' just seems like a great way to absolve himself of the responsibilities of veganism, while still retaining his paycheque/followers and that feeling of superiority he very likely gets from preaching about righteous ways online.
I have little faith in media personalities though, so who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
He's never really seemed to be after the money, he didn't have a patron for a long time. He mostly goes around doing debates and discussions with other intellectuals.
It's very likely that a percentage of the population can't live on a vegan diet.
When you get a chance watch it, it looks very genuine to me, or he's a world class actor.
84 Comments
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 145 pts · 1y
This is part of a larger UK campaign to make people feel bad about energy usage while Starmer is filling increasingly large amounts of UK infrastructure with AI stuff that requires 100x the amount of power.
toast@retrolemmy.com · 21 pts · 1y
Only 100x?
ddplf@szmer.info · 100 pts · 1y
Segregate your garbage so we can later throw it all into the same heap anyways.
Remember to turn off every power source when you leave home everyday the whole year to compensate for one day of McDonald's signboard glowing 24/7.
Lease an overpriced EV so that the planet may survive another billionaire's wedding.
This is our collective duty to pay for the lavish lifestyle of the 1%.
Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 1y
I just stopped buying stuff..I buy food, that's it. my garbage has gone from 3 bags biweekly, 2etal and 3 cardboard down to maybe 2 garbage, half a metal one and maybe 1 cardboard.
it's amazing how much garbage they force on us when we buy companies junk
sometimes there's more packaging costs then product...it's absurd.
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1y
Ok but have you considered that if literally every person on the planet did this, climate change would immediately be fixed??
You're just a HATER of practical solutions....... /s
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe · 12 pts · 1y
Please tell me you forgot the /s ?
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
Thought it was obvious given how "every person in the world" and "practical" was in the same comment lol
kautau@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
If everyone turned off their smartphones for a day it would account for less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet in that day.
If you have a fridge in your house it’s likely using almost 100 times more power than your smartphone. Your heating or air conditioning is using far more power. The steel industry, agricultural industry, transportation, are all pumping out greenhouse gasses at a rate that using electronics is negligible.
AI is becoming another one of those industries, but if everyone turned off their personal devices, they would still need to get up, go to work, which would likely use AI, because they need to buy groceries and pay rent and keep their home powered, and capitalism churns.
Being outraged at the systems around us is a good thing, pointing the outrage toward people living daily lives while wealthy corporations and people do everything in their power to do as little as possible for social good while farming maximum personal benefit, power, and profit is not.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 1y
Phone: under 5 watts. Heating: 10kW heat pump
Worrying about your phone energy cost would be fairly dumb. Usage/battery life can be a valid consideration of course.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
These are great, thank you for putting them together.
ddplf@szmer.info · 1 pts · 1y
Unfortunately that's not even scratching the surface
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Keep going, they're good comparisons.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 93 pts · 1y
"YOUR screen time is destroying the environment!" Says screen that is using electricity 24/7.
Denjin@feddit.uk · 41 pts · 1y
The fluorescent tubes to power this thing all day for months probably uses more power than my router does in its life time.
reddig33@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 1y
I agree with you. Most energy comes from renewables these days, and your wi-fi usage is a negligible amount in the scale of things. How about going after corporate energy waste like AI instead?
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 0 pts · 1y
AI is negligible compared to Coal & private jets etc. Or just gross spending by billionaires
scratchee@feddit.uk · 15 pts · 1y
It currently is negligible. Depending on how long this hype train lasts it may stop being negligible. Coal is on the decline. Private jets and careless billionaires are growing problems, but not as fast as ai. All need handling one way or another.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 6 pts · 1y
I'm anti-ai for privacy, copyright reasons etc.
But the environmental impact is negligible, streaming Netflix uses way more resources than thousands of AI prompts (including training)
If we watched less YouTube it would make a much bigger difference than if we didn't use AI
scratchee@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 1y
Fair point, after some googling I see I was significantly overestimating ais impact despite your comment previous comment, my bad.
shadeless@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 1y
Do you have a source for the streaming v AI power consumption thing? I don't want to be an ass, just genuinely curious. When I run jellyfin and stream something from my home server, it draws 35 watts. If I run an ai model on my GPU, it draws way more than that.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1y
I can't remember where I first saw it, I quickly found this
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
Maybe not the best source, but tl:dr one ChatGPT prompt uses ~3watts including the training.
10min of 4k video streaming uses significantly more than a lot of prompts
Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1y
But most people don't stream in 4k
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1y
Maybe not, but streaming an hour of 1080p also uses a lot of resources compared to AI
the_q@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1y
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev · 35 pts · 1y
Individualistic solutions to systemic problems have zero chance of working.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
they 100% work.
that's why they do it.
they make sure to shift the blame, to make sure the system remains unchanged and people who are profiting from what is basically omniside keep profiting from killing the planet and everyone in it.
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
They don't work though, they just convince people it does.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
you missed my point.
it works because the intended purpose is to shift blame and avoid any actual regulations/policies that will actually solve the problem.
they work because the intended purpose is to increase profits and fuck over everyone
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 33 pts · 1y
And yet somehow bombs seem to grow on trees in the US and UK for dropping on innocent children by the IDF in Gaza.
This ad was a waste of the energy it took to print.
unknown@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1y
If the internet is demonised with enough propaganda about it being full of porn and bad for the environment, while steadily becoming more and more difficult to access, then the British public will stop knowing about the atrocities Kid Starver is spending their tax money on.
Protesting anything the government disaproves of is a criminal offense and journalists have already been imprisoned over reporting too accurately on the Palestinian genocide.
I get the feeling the internet sanctions and propaganda will just keep coming now till the government can control the narrative and we will always have been at war with East Asia.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
The UK does not sell bombs to Israel anymore.
It's obviously bad that we ever did, but it's not something that we currently do. It stopped a while back, and is probably partly why Israel has become very hostile with Labour/Starmer as of late.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 1y
Did they actually stop? Yeah it seems like the UK is further along the process of disengaging but our connections to the genocide of palestinians run so deep it is hard to fathom the US government listening to its people and stopping arming Israel.
TheBat@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
It is not on a screen.
It is printed with a backlight. You can see that it is just a poster.
TheBat@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 1y
The light that powers that sign likely uses more power than is going to be saved by people turning their screens off because of it
midtsveen@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 1y
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
A Model 3 battery is 200,000-300,000 kiloJoules.
Absolute worst case for an image, even taking very extreme estimates and amortizing out all the training, is like 30 kJ. Maybe 70 kJ for a slop video that takes under a minute to render, which is on the order of browsing Lemmy on a laptop for a bit. For reference, a local generation with FLUX dev on my 3090 is 2 kJ per image, and that's relatively inefficient.
I'm just saying, that is a bad comparison, as EVs take an absolute truckload of electricity to run.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1y
I don't think anybody turns their phones on thinking "I wonder what halfbaked AI generated video i can watch now?"
midtsveen@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 1y
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
AI slop is a different topic.
midtsveen@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 1y
tetris11@feddit.uk · -9 pts · 1y
oh fuck off with that logic, a message needs a platform to be heard. Yelling at the top of your lungs about the axe-murderer isnt going to get you anywhere if you're in his basement with the bodies. Get on his roof and yell
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
They could always use a poster...
tetris11@feddit.uk · -2 pts · 1y
"But the trees used to cut that poster and the glue used to put it up, along with the lighting needed to make it visible at a distance would incur unforgiveable costs on this planet..."
It IS a poster with a backlight that was already there.
This isn't BP throwing out a million dollar PR campaign to improve their image after polluting the ocean, this is a university putting out a PSA to drum interest about sustainable ways of using our digital devices.
They printed a poster and rented an illuminated poster board that was already there to do so. It's the same contradiction as using a diesel train to attend Friday for Future's rally. Sometimes you have to just have to use the most practical medium to get your message out
rbesfe@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1y
What exactly is this PSA telling people? The message seems to just be "screens use electricity, and we're doing vague sustainability research around that".
I think this could have been a spam email and it would have achieved the same outcome. Not to mention that electricity is getting greener by the day, and personal device usage is such a small portion of electricity use it might as well be zero
tetris11@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 1y
Well I typed in the link to their page, and it's.... nothing. They're literally not saying anything, just talking about some bs initatives with their corporate sponsors. Yes, fine, this is silly nonsense
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
This isn't a worthwhile message.
Psaldorn@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 1y
Is that advert backlit ALL DAY?
Think. Think again.Think about industrial energy use and lack of government enforcing landlords to install insulation and solarGerudo@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1y
Eh, I can give a pass to this because even if it wasn't this ad, another one would be in its place burning the same amount of energy.
Womble@piefed.world · 6 pts · 1y
If this university hadnt bought this meaningless advert it would have a tiny reduction in the demand for advertising potentially leading to less always lit billboards being made. So no, they dont get a pass for it.
Gerudo@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
I think a fairer argument is to see how many people actually reduced their screen time. Then, see if that offset the run time of this ad. In that case, this sign doesn't get a pass because we all know the answer to that question.
uno@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 1y
Wouldn't it still be more useful to display an ad criticizing this kind of 24/7 lit ad?
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 19 pts · 1y
If you wanted my screen time to be more efficient, please explain all these JS and CSS frameworks you are requiring me to load.
Mwa@thelemmy.club · 17 pts · 1y
Why not use AI as a example
oplkill@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
Local AI probably uses more CO2 per prompt than datacenter, unless you're running off your own solar panels or something
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
You really bit the AI phobia.
Even 1000 non-local AI prompts use about the same energy as your microwave.
Datacenters running AI are crunching billions of prompts a second.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Hang on those aren't even equivalent units. Equivalent to running your microwave for how long?
Honytawk@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
A single prompt is about 1 - 1.5 W/h.
A microwave is 1000 - 1500 W/h.
It doesn't matter how long you run either. Most prompt are only seconds.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Watts per hour is not a unit of energy or power, do you mean watt-hours? Neither of those numbers seems right if so. And the amount of energy consumed by a prompt will vary wildly based on the size of the model, your hardware, what your prompt is, etc. My point is that, with 2 identical prompts on 2 identical models, one done in a specialized datacenter and one done at home, the one at home will probably use more power because it's less efficient. Therefore, if we are concerned with how much power AI datacenters are using, switching from datacenters to home computing is clearly not a solution.
oplkill@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Mwa@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 1y
I am talking about Non Local ai here
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
Updated version of the "turn the water off while you're brushing your teeth" ads in the 80s/90s. If you can afford ad spend, you're a bigger problem than the people targeted by it.
SpatchyIsOnline@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y
Data centers use massive amounts of power. Reducing that power consumption would be a net positive on the environment.
That said, looking at the site, I can't see anything that suggests they've done any research into that. Instead they seem to be promoting their research into keeping kids safe online, with the only mention of the OSA being a short description in their recent June report with no comment about anything to do with it's obvious shortcomings.
Tiger_Man_@szmer.info · 13 pts · 1y
The climate after i send electromagnetic waves at 2.4 GHz frequency:
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 12 pts · 1y
AI dataceter water cooling doesn't grow on trees.
Your showers are hurting the profits.
als@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 1y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Group
The uk government keeps giving them renewable energy subsidies because trees can regrow but ignore the fact that they cut down trees the other side of the world to burn them here. It releases all the carbon stored in the trees into the atmosphere and then they capture a small percentage of it back and pretend to be the good guys.
Windex007@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
If my goal was to try and damage the organization of groups looking to drive environmental initiatives, this is what I'd do. One of the things, anyways.
magnetosphere@fedia.io · 10 pts · 1y
It’s cheaper and easier to make people feel bad than it is to take reasonable steps to actually solve our environmental problems. Plus, this option lets you be smug and judgmental.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
Ah the UEL, where you can do useful studies that don't require screen time:
MSc Artificial Intelligence
MSc Artificial Intelligence (with placement year)
MSc Big Data Technologies
MSc Big Data Technologies (with industrial placement)
MSc Blockchain and Financial Technologies
MSc Blockchain and Financial Technologies (with industrial placement)
MSc Cloud Computing
MSc Cloud Computing (with industrial placement)
MSc Computer Science
MSc Computer Science (with industrial placement)
MSc Computing
MSc Computing (with industrial placement)
Or Business and Finance where you can learn how to make people consume and buy mooooore!
beejboytyson@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
I thought you learned about cocaine and getting others to do your work.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Well OC, I did mention Business and Finance
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
My thoughts are that this makes no sense at all.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 1y
I think they want to subtly train the masses to use less electricity because the new AI schemes need all of that extra power just to exist.
Zozano@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 1y
Did one of their worst students in graphic design make this?
It's fucking awful.
Why is "on trees" circled?
Why is the first "think" crossed out.
Why would I think again when they dismissed my first attempt?
What is the significance of the paper in the centre being torn?
Is WiFi the issue?
Is screen time the issue?
What if I use WiFi without my screen?
What if I put my phone in aeroplane mode?
Do they want us reading newspapers or some shit?
Isn't cutting down trees also kinda shit for the environment?
2deck@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
The first think is crossed out because you're not supposed to think. You're supposed to feel... feel bad about using your phone. It's like it's designed to turn any opinion against any other opinion.
beejboytyson@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Meritocracy never existed.
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch · 3 pts · 1y
Honestly the biggest thing I think you could do (other than dying) is quitting animal consumption, but 90% of people can’t be bothered to make that simple change and would rather drivel on and on in endless debates about their sudden “health problems” and cultural norms that conveniently don’t allow for them to stop.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 9 pts · 1y
Not everyone can live fully vegan. Just look at Alex O'connor's vegan journey.
But a lot of people can try, and everyone can cut out beef if they want, which would already be a big win
unknown@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1y
Can you summarise? Ngl, I'm skeptical tho.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 5 pts · 1y
He's a young YouTuber who started out talking about atheism and became a vegan and a big advocate for veganism and was very outspoken about switching to veganism etc. but a year or two into his journey he revealed that due to health reasons he can't stay on a vegan diet so he's reintroduced meat into his diet and he will try and do it as ethically possible but for health reasons he needs to consume animal products.
More details here: https://youtu.be/J6QWY4T6gxc
He's got great content
unknown@piefed.social · 0 pts · 1y
Honestly, I'm still skeptical.
I glanced at the ai summary as I can't watch something right now and this 'pre-existing health condition' just seems like a great way to absolve himself of the responsibilities of veganism, while still retaining his paycheque/followers and that feeling of superiority he very likely gets from preaching about righteous ways online.
I have little faith in media personalities though, so who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1y
He's never really seemed to be after the money, he didn't have a patron for a long time. He mostly goes around doing debates and discussions with other intellectuals.
It's very likely that a percentage of the population can't live on a vegan diet.
When you get a chance watch it, it looks very genuine to me, or he's a world class actor.
crediblethreat@scribe.disroot.org · 0 pts · 1y
I doubt it
midtsveen@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 1y
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1y
YouTube & TikTok use far more resources than AI
midtsveen@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 1y
bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1y
M137@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
What are your thoughts on this?
Or
What's your thought on this?
Not what the title is now. "What is your thoughts" obviously isn't correct.
oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1y
https://youtu.be/vAqVmUciDSc
Tiger_Man_@szmer.info · 1 pts · 1y
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Oi, when the inturnet loisence will com?
Lumidaub@feddit.org · -1 pts · 1y
Sounds like it wants me to not care about trees because what did they ever do for us?
Edit: /s
Kirp123@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
Fruits? Wood? Oxygen? Soil Fixation? Spices? Truffles? Shade?
Ok, but besides fruits, wood, oxygen, soil fixation, spice truffles and shade, what have the trees ever done for us?
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Maple syrup.
Damn, where's the pancake mix