Not who you've been arguing with, I'm someone else.
And yes, a bunch of governments made bad decisions and almost everyone needs to change. But pretending like everyone needs to change equally, or only China needs to do better, are both dumb takes. Yeah China needs to do better, but policy and lifestyle-wise not as much better as the US or Australia, or hell yeah Qatar. If all of Qatar's scant 3 million people went carbon neutral, it would be equivalent to a full 10% of the entire continent of Africa doing so. That's one country's policy and culture causing as much damage as the collective efforts of the smallest African 31 countries combined, most of which are larger than Qatar.
China may be the biggest emiter on net, but per capital it's not particularly egregious, which means, and stick with me here because it's the important part you aren't getting, there don't need to be as extreme policy and lifestyle changes in China to lower total emissions as a country like Qatar, which basically has to restructure everything from the ground up.
It's a very clumsy analogy, but it does have a fair point. CO2 is a proxy for standard of living, and some countries have a lot more room to cut fat than others.
While China emits almost 3x as much net CO2 as the USA, getting China to the global average emissions of 4.7 tons/person would only have ~1.5x the effect of getting everyone in the US to that level, while affecting over four times as many people.
As a hyperbolic example, getting everyone in the US to be vegetarian half-time with no other lifestyle changes would have roughly the same carbon savings as making the combined populations of Nigeria and Kenya (roughly equal to US population) completely carbon neutral, while also being way more economically feasible.
It depends on the country, but there's a self-preservation aspect to academics leaning left. In the USA especially but not exclusively a major right-wing policy point has been defunding academia and publicly-funded research in general. Unless you're in a field that can reliably pull private funding, such as some branches of the oft-mentioned economics, voting and sharing right-wing talking points carries a major risk of getting your funding cut and leaving you without a job.
I don't have a researched answer, but the reason breastfeeding women can still drink is because breast milk also shares the blood alcohol level so when Mom is too drunk to drive, baby is drinking alcoholic milk with a percentage ~0.08%; for reference non alcoholic beer can be up to 0.5% and alcoholic beer is generally anywhere between 2.5-10%.
All that to say that idk anything about mosquito physiology but with arbitrary assumptions of roughly equal alcohol tolerances between humans and mosquitos, and with a human blood alcohol limit of ~0.4% before the human dies of alcohol, those mosquitoes are sipping on nonalcoholic beer no matter how drunk you get. Unless they have abnormally low tolerance, and a quick Google search doesn't suggest they do, humans can't raise their blood alcohol enough to impair mosquitos.
I think you're trolling but whatever, here's a Mazda commercial from 1990 with no mention of Mitsubishi
[https://youtu.be/10rtVBRjCK4?is=9Z0mLBV_rV9GFKew]
I tried looking up joint commercials from the early 2000s for either of these brand combinations and found nothing at all. Plenty for Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc. each separately, but no joint ventures. Curious if anyone else, especially OP, can find anything?
Sure, but that only shows one of the two captions found above. In this case it's labelled as title text here. Or are you seeing both on a cursor hover?
There's also a supply issue. Manufacturers make more on SUVs and in the us have less stringent emissions caps, so they make a ton more. Annectodally several friends and relations have looked at getting minivans only to be confronted with months-long waitlists. The equivalent capacity SUV they could walk off the lot with that day. So, guess which they ended up with?
I think there are two mindsets in BIFL communities that somewhat diametrically oppose each other. There's the "I'm tired of buying cheap crap that falls apart when I use it; recommend me an economical drop in that I can mildly abuse and it won't fall apart," and there's the "I have some money and want to spend it wisely on really nice stuff that my descendents will fight over because it's so nice and still going strong."
Obviously there are others and it's a continuum, but I think a lot of people talk past each other because they might recommend e.g. hugely expensive heirloom pans for your great grandkids to admire, when what OP wants is something that can take a beating from randos and still work fine or be recoverable. Or, conversely, someone else might be looking for that recommendation of beautiful sauciers to proudly have on display on their pot rack, and what they're recommended is crusty thrift-store lodges that they have to refinish themselves.
Every single one of those examples does have contrasts though. The mission Church wood is a different color, and the shadows you can see of the ceiling provide a third. The brutality has starkly different windows, the stairwell is accented in beige, and there is a lot of texture in the concrete. villa savoye has contrasted base, window trim, and again the white starkly contrasts with the reflective windows. Idk what this person's neighbor house looks like but solid untextured teal (or any color) would look pretty weird imo without at least some differences in tone, texture, or like natural colored window frames at least.
I have a pair of Jim Green Chelsea's I really like. I have normal width feet (or maybe narrow) and the wide toebox is overkill for me, and maybe because of that the break-in was brutal and very long, like 6 months before my feet stopped floating and I stopped getting blisters from wearing them for too long. But they're comfortable overall, durable seeming, waterproof enough, look good, and seem to be made of good materials and easily repaired
I also recently discovered this website through a different site. One criticism I noticed and have seen possibly verified is that many (all?) of the articles are at least AI edited, and possibly whole-cloth written. Also, the author works for Palantir.
I haven't had enough time to go through any of the articles and follow up on the sources to see if they're still factually accurate or not, has anyone else verified any of the articles or their recommendations?
Article touched on this but with no depth or insights at all, but leather is a much more durable good than food. They equate a leather wallet as having the carbon impact of four burgers; I'll accept that uncritically for the moment, but four burgers will sustain me for maybe 2 days, whereas my leather wallet has lasted over 10 years of daily use. Maybe that doesn't matter from an overall emissions standpoint, if the leather industry produces 8% of the emissions of the meat industry, but I think it does bear out that replacing beef in my diet will have a far greater impact than replacing leather just by volume of consumption.
They also show that leather alternatives have a lower carbon cost of manufacture, which I'll also buy, but what matters for durable goods is lifetime cost, which is only vaguely alluded to without citations. Annectodally I'm still wearing a leather bomber jacket my father bought at a thrift store when he was young, whereas a pleather jacket from a nice brand fell apart after less than 10 years of less frequent wearing. That means the leather would have to be more than 5x more damaging to be a worse climate decision, which their chart doesn't appear to show, though again it's all fairly wishy-washy.
Yeah, definitely think there are use cases for this (look at how popular the xeink X4 has gotten), but a device smaller in most dimensions than modern smartphones isn't gonna make a good general purpose ereader for many people
Good to know, I was a bit disappointed by the second though I did like a lot about it. I'll have to pick up the third and finish it once I'm past the current round of books!
Just from the language up top and the reference to multiple orgs I assume this was in reference to the massive federal layoff last year that was presented as a voluntary retirement, but with the implicit threat that you'll probably be laid off in 6 months if you don't take it. One of the justifications from DOGE was that we were all more productive now.
Not who you've been arguing with, I'm someone else.
And yes, a bunch of governments made bad decisions and almost everyone needs to change. But pretending like everyone needs to change equally, or only China needs to do better, are both dumb takes. Yeah China needs to do better, but policy and lifestyle-wise not as much better as the US or Australia, or hell yeah Qatar. If all of Qatar's scant 3 million people went carbon neutral, it would be equivalent to a full 10% of the entire continent of Africa doing so. That's one country's policy and culture causing as much damage as the collective efforts of the smallest African 31 countries combined, most of which are larger than Qatar.
China may be the biggest emiter on net, but per capital it's not particularly egregious, which means, and stick with me here because it's the important part you aren't getting, there don't need to be as extreme policy and lifestyle changes in China to lower total emissions as a country like Qatar, which basically has to restructure everything from the ground up.
It's a very clumsy analogy, but it does have a fair point. CO2 is a proxy for standard of living, and some countries have a lot more room to cut fat than others.
While China emits almost 3x as much net CO2 as the USA, getting China to the global average emissions of 4.7 tons/person would only have ~1.5x the effect of getting everyone in the US to that level, while affecting over four times as many people.
As a hyperbolic example, getting everyone in the US to be vegetarian half-time with no other lifestyle changes would have roughly the same carbon savings as making the combined populations of Nigeria and Kenya (roughly equal to US population) completely carbon neutral, while also being way more economically feasible.
It depends on the country, but there's a self-preservation aspect to academics leaning left. In the USA especially but not exclusively a major right-wing policy point has been defunding academia and publicly-funded research in general. Unless you're in a field that can reliably pull private funding, such as some branches of the oft-mentioned economics, voting and sharing right-wing talking points carries a major risk of getting your funding cut and leaving you without a job.
In fairness I don't think he cares if he loses to Iran as long as people forget about the Epstein files
I don't have a researched answer, but the reason breastfeeding women can still drink is because breast milk also shares the blood alcohol level so when Mom is too drunk to drive, baby is drinking alcoholic milk with a percentage ~0.08%; for reference non alcoholic beer can be up to 0.5% and alcoholic beer is generally anywhere between 2.5-10%.
All that to say that idk anything about mosquito physiology but with arbitrary assumptions of roughly equal alcohol tolerances between humans and mosquitos, and with a human blood alcohol limit of ~0.4% before the human dies of alcohol, those mosquitoes are sipping on nonalcoholic beer no matter how drunk you get. Unless they have abnormally low tolerance, and a quick Google search doesn't suggest they do, humans can't raise their blood alcohol enough to impair mosquitos.
I think you're trolling but whatever, here's a Mazda commercial from 1990 with no mention of Mitsubishi [https://youtu.be/10rtVBRjCK4?is=9Z0mLBV_rV9GFKew]
I tried looking up joint commercials from the early 2000s for either of these brand combinations and found nothing at all. Plenty for Mazda, Mitsubishi, etc. each separately, but no joint ventures. Curious if anyone else, especially OP, can find anything?
Sure, but that only shows one of the two captions found above. In this case it's labelled as title text here. Or are you seeing both on a cursor hover?
Wow that's dedication to include extra jokes in the html!
Ok I've been wondering this for a while but where is the alt text? The title text I find no problem.
There's also a supply issue. Manufacturers make more on SUVs and in the us have less stringent emissions caps, so they make a ton more. Annectodally several friends and relations have looked at getting minivans only to be confronted with months-long waitlists. The equivalent capacity SUV they could walk off the lot with that day. So, guess which they ended up with?
I think there are two mindsets in BIFL communities that somewhat diametrically oppose each other. There's the "I'm tired of buying cheap crap that falls apart when I use it; recommend me an economical drop in that I can mildly abuse and it won't fall apart," and there's the "I have some money and want to spend it wisely on really nice stuff that my descendents will fight over because it's so nice and still going strong."
Obviously there are others and it's a continuum, but I think a lot of people talk past each other because they might recommend e.g. hugely expensive heirloom pans for your great grandkids to admire, when what OP wants is something that can take a beating from randos and still work fine or be recoverable. Or, conversely, someone else might be looking for that recommendation of beautiful sauciers to proudly have on display on their pot rack, and what they're recommended is crusty thrift-store lodges that they have to refinish themselves.
Every single one of those examples does have contrasts though. The mission Church wood is a different color, and the shadows you can see of the ceiling provide a third. The brutality has starkly different windows, the stairwell is accented in beige, and there is a lot of texture in the concrete. villa savoye has contrasted base, window trim, and again the white starkly contrasts with the reflective windows. Idk what this person's neighbor house looks like but solid untextured teal (or any color) would look pretty weird imo without at least some differences in tone, texture, or like natural colored window frames at least.
I have a pair of Jim Green Chelsea's I really like. I have normal width feet (or maybe narrow) and the wide toebox is overkill for me, and maybe because of that the break-in was brutal and very long, like 6 months before my feet stopped floating and I stopped getting blisters from wearing them for too long. But they're comfortable overall, durable seeming, waterproof enough, look good, and seem to be made of good materials and easily repaired
I also recently discovered this website through a different site. One criticism I noticed and have seen possibly verified is that many (all?) of the articles are at least AI edited, and possibly whole-cloth written. Also, the author works for Palantir.
I haven't had enough time to go through any of the articles and follow up on the sources to see if they're still factually accurate or not, has anyone else verified any of the articles or their recommendations?
Article touched on this but with no depth or insights at all, but leather is a much more durable good than food. They equate a leather wallet as having the carbon impact of four burgers; I'll accept that uncritically for the moment, but four burgers will sustain me for maybe 2 days, whereas my leather wallet has lasted over 10 years of daily use. Maybe that doesn't matter from an overall emissions standpoint, if the leather industry produces 8% of the emissions of the meat industry, but I think it does bear out that replacing beef in my diet will have a far greater impact than replacing leather just by volume of consumption.
They also show that leather alternatives have a lower carbon cost of manufacture, which I'll also buy, but what matters for durable goods is lifetime cost, which is only vaguely alluded to without citations. Annectodally I'm still wearing a leather bomber jacket my father bought at a thrift store when he was young, whereas a pleather jacket from a nice brand fell apart after less than 10 years of less frequent wearing. That means the leather would have to be more than 5x more damaging to be a worse climate decision, which their chart doesn't appear to show, though again it's all fairly wishy-washy.
Yeah, definitely think there are use cases for this (look at how popular the xeink X4 has gotten), but a device smaller in most dimensions than modern smartphones isn't gonna make a good general purpose ereader for many people
Good to know, I was a bit disappointed by the second though I did like a lot about it. I'll have to pick up the third and finish it once I'm past the current round of books!
Or the dismantling of various government supports and aid programs?
Just from the language up top and the reference to multiple orgs I assume this was in reference to the massive federal layoff last year that was presented as a voluntary retirement, but with the implicit threat that you'll probably be laid off in 6 months if you don't take it. One of the justifications from DOGE was that we were all more productive now.