You’re forgetting that my car doesn’t go faster than 150km/h, and even at that speed the battery lasts way shorter than at a comfortable 120km/h🤡

Fuel consumption at 200km/h is almost double compared to 120km/h, so who has the cash anyway. And even if you do, is it worth it? Nah.

I’m on lemmy.world and I’ve seen at least one from Hexbear

I have seen pretty radical stuff from news@hexbear.net. Like, holy moly. I think it was on All, but maybe I accidentally subscribed to it. Saying stuff like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” seems to get upvotes over there.

I get it, Israel’s illegal settlements and occupation of Gaza make it pretty easy for radical groups to gain followers. But that doesn’t mean that shooting at ordinary people is going to fix anything. Sure, Palestine has a right to defend itself. But shooting up a festival hardly qualifies as this.

Equally relevant, putting aside Israel’s settlements which we know to be illegal, the number of civilians dying in Gaza is totally unacceptable. Air strikes might look less horrific than men with guns, but they are really equally horrific, killing huge numbers of civilians. These lives are not worth less in any way.

I think this order of thoughts is appropriate:

1. It is awful that civilians are dying, no matter where they live
2. Unjust violence is taking place in Israel and in Gaza
3. This doesn’t come out of the blue. Current conditions are a violation of international law by Israel and are a breeding ground for radicalisation. Israel has many more cards in their hands to turn this around than Palestine has.
4. Can we please end this endless cycle of violence and suffering?

And beans. And lentils. And peas.

Also, opting for the burger options doesn’t have to mean eating a huge quantity of them.

Could be worse though

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Whoa, way to escalate a discussion. I thought we all fled from Reddit because of things like this.

Liberalism is not a single ideology. I wrote a few other replies to explain this. Check the Wikipedia page on liberalism in Europe, it’s quite diverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_Europe

In political science definitions aren’t prescribed, they are described. The meaning of liberalism is dependent on what actors who call themselves liberal say or do.

There are different kinds of liberalism. There is social liberalism, classic liberalism, conservative liberalism, etc. Considering how broad liberalism is, for most people it doesn’t make sense to “oppose” liberalism.

A country doesn’t have an ideology. People and parties do.

People assign different meanings to it. Many people are aware of the differences in liberalism between the US and Europe, but also within Europe there are many differences. Liberalism in the UK differs quite a lot from Sweden and the Netherlands. And within countries conservative Christian parties might say they are liberal, as well as centre leftwinged parties. Yet, they might find it hard to collaborate and have strong disagreements on the role of the state.

Liberals can easily have entirely different views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Liberalism doesn’t tell you exactly what to prioritise here. For sure is that the establishment of settlements isn’t very liberal, and violence against civilizations isn’t either. But liberalism doesn’t dictate a solution.

It’s just maintaining arch that was a bit of a headache for me. I loved having access to the AUR and being able to use bleeding edge… well, everything. But too much of my time ended up going to fixing issues after updates or finding out what package to choose when there were conflicts during updates.

I don’t really recognise this in responses that I’ve heard so far. Everyone seems to be quite aware that Israel’s military capabilities can’t be compared to those of Hamas and a large part of the escalation is in the hands of Israel.

The western world can’t even agree on what liberals are. It is not that helpful to characterise 'liberals" in a particular way around this issue, especially when randomly involving minorities in Ukraine.

Instead of focussing on whose side who is on, let’s focus on reducing suffering and how to work towards a situation where international agreements are upheld.

Obligatory warning AVOID CCA CABLES! They can be a hazard!

Go for copper. More on this issue:

https://www.truecable.com/blogs/cable-academy/cca-vs-solid-copper#page_comments=1

Whether we treat animals fairly shouldn’t depend on whether they’re friendly or playful towards humans.

Still, every cow looks curious and investigative. And even if they’re skittish, they’re still much more trusting towards humans than we deserve. If the cow understood what was really happening, it would be horrified of the monsters that humans are towards cows.

I agree that it shouldn’t be a matter of being for or against nuclear.

The best mix of renewable energy supply of any country is going to be very context dependent. Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind all perform best when they’re used in the right location. Nuclear energy is much more expensive per Megawatthour than renewable energy sources, but it’s highly predictable.

In addition to the high cost, the construction time of a nuclear power plant tends to be somewhere between 10-20 years. Therefore, it makes sense to find solutions first in grid balancing solutions like mega batteries (for balancing, not long term storage), smart EV chargers, and matching demand better with supply through variable pricing. These are all relatively affordable solutions that would reduce the need for a predictable energy supply like nuclear.

But, if the measures above are not enough or if there are concerns about the feasibility of such measures in a particular context, then analyses might point towards nuclear as a solution as the most cost effective solution.

It’s pointless to make nuclear power a polical issue while we’re rapidly approaching an irreversible climate crisis. We don’t have the luxury to act based on preferences. Policymakers shouldn’t view nuclear power as a taboo, but also shouldn’t opt to construct one simply to attract voters.

Very easy to set up and almost no work to maintain*

If you, despite knowing better, rarely update your containers and host OS and often think about a list of other important tasks that you have yet to do.

Rule 1 of life: be skeptical when someone presents their opinion as facts.

Looking at Western European countries like Germany, the Netherlands and the UK to an extent, the road to net-zero is disrupting. Probably because necessary steps have been delayed until the last moment. Large numbers of refugees have a destabilising effect on democracy as well.

Some steps that are necessary for net-zero are expensive investments (like heat pumps) that are causing conflicts in society. Going ahead with it as well as delaying is sure to be met with very loud resistance. Don’t think that Germany can miss it’s climate goals without some serious protests, perhaps worse than they’ve ever seen.

At the same time, I wonder how well UK households are going to deal with even higher food prices as the percentage of failed harvests increases. There isn’t a lot of buffer space here.

It’s not so much whether rich countries have enough money to deal with climate change, but rather how well democracy will fare when it’s under duress.