Voters think that though. Waking them up from the illusion may help.

Plus, honestly, most people drink their own kool aid so I wouldn’t be surprised if our leaders did believe this despite all evidence. The desire to think of yourself as a good person can overpower most evidence.

Thanks, I hate it.

Yeah I realize it would require irrigation but that’s very doable with modern technology.

We could fundraise an electric truck to bring the water or something.

Thank god for SMUD.

I think it’s quite a bit more complicated than this. The concept of disposing of something always existed, but for most of human history that meant just leaving waste where it fell or at most tossing it at the edge of the village.

It’s only once larger settlements appeared that a need to concentrate waste in one location to avoid despoiling the entire area became necessary. This was greatly compounded with the invention of manufactured materials that don’t biodegrade like glass and plastic. There was no other solution to this than to concentrate and bury waste so it didn’t end up everywhere.

Someone should replant it. Surely we have the technology.

Both of the Cold War empires spent decades lying about what socialism was, and that process continues to this day. No wonder people are confused.

News articles: Millennials are ruining circumcision!

Live by the truck, die by the truck.

Oh well that should be fine then.

USA

They’re gonna pull a USA aren’t they…

This one goes into pretty good detail about the challenges in CA in particular:

https://energy.mit.edu/news/decarbonizing-the-u-s-power-grid/

But at 50 grams of CO2 per kWh, the ban on nuclear makes a significant difference. “Without nuclear, there’s about a 45% increase in total system size, which is really quite substantial,” says Farnsworth. “It’s a vastly different system, and it’s more expensive.” Indeed, the cost of electricity would increase by 7%.

Going one step further, the researchers performed an analysis to determine the most decarbonized system possible in California. Without nuclear, the state could reach 40 grams of CO2 per kWh. “But when you allow for nuclear, you can get all the way down to 16 grams of CO2 per kWh,” says Farnsworth. “We found that California needs nuclear more than any other region due to its poor wind resources.”

TL;DR you can do it with batteries it just costs more, and getting consumers to accept higher electricity prices in order to protect the environment is already going to be a tough sell politically. Of course, so is nuclear, so I do support continued efforts into some more novel sources of baseline power such as floating offshore wind and advanced geothermal. However, these are not ready to be implemented at scale today and the federal government is currently making offshore wind nearly impossible to construct. So I don’t know. There aren’t any easy answers, unfortunately, but we have to hope either the political or technological landscape changes somehow to make deep decarbonization possible.

Position is open for anyone who can promise to squeeze blood from a stone!

I would expect capital flight to be somewhat dose dependent but it’s pretty clear it’s a non-issue at the level of taxation we’re discussing these days.

Sure, if you trust them. Not sure how objective they are in Wales but a lot of our courts here are pretty corrupt. Plus it’s just going to be very hard to prove because you can always claim you genuinely believed what you said.

In theory I love the idea of holding people who lie to the public accountable but I’m just not sure how well it will work in practice. I guess we’ll find out.

I’d love some context on why she was disrobing in public lol

What was the message there exactly?

But who determines what’s a lie?

I’m not pretending anything. All art does consist of ideas. Some also consists of a physical aspect and that physical aspect can be stolen. The intellectual, or idea part cannot be.

You’re the one who tried to move the goalposts to physical media with your museum analogy. So I modified that to make it as close to this situation as possible but still contain the same concepts–making a copy, and then, yes, using it however I wish after the fact. I didn’t spell that out because I thought the point was obvious but sure we can go there too.

I can take my photographs of paintings and put them into AI training data if I want to. The museum is not going to hunt me down for this because again, it obviously harms no one.

But let me make my own analogy here. If I broke into PizzaCake’s house and stole a physical print of this comic, are you asserting that’s the same as me downloading a copy of it here? Let’s say I use them the same way after the fact, for AI or whatever harmless use you find most offensive.

The entire AI industry stands on top of the IP house of cards you are defending far more fundamentally than any need to access data for free. If they were forced to follow copyright law, sure, their training data might get a bit worse, it might cost them a bit more but fundamentally they would continue to do the same things. In contrast, if they didn’t have a monopoly on the product of that training, there would be no profit model for them whatsoever. And you are defending that foundation here, no matter what you may think.

OP chose the title with the subtext in mind.

I can’t believe we’re debating this. The subtext is so obvious. I can’t tell if you people have the reading ability of a literal child or if you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you don’t want to or what?

But what exactly am I telling on here? I think sexual assault is bad and IP laws are bad. That’s no secret.