[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're looking for counter-arguments for Solipsism.

Wikipedia's definition:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.

Further reading: Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds

Thread with some counter-arguments: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/89321/what-are-the-best-arguments-against-solipsism

The one I personally chose for myself is the pragmatic one: Believing reality is a fantasy doesn't actually changes your experience of it.

Edit: Broken links.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

I'll admit I don't get it...

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 18 points 11 months ago

After that, you just start anticipating this feeling and unlock social anxiety.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

That's right. It's a great recommendation for learning about Linux.

For anyone who needs something that just works, there's a lot better options.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fuentes: Miami me lo confirmó.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

When referring to the entire continent, I've heard "The Americas" in English.

Just a reminder: Central America is another division of the American continent.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~There's also United States of Brazil~~.

But you've got "Mexican" and "Brazilian" for both of those countries that include United States in their proper names.

I'd continue to say "United statean" in Spanish because that's an accepted name in the Spanish language. There's no confusion to what country you're referring to.

But in English it is a lost battle. If you mean to include people from the entire continent, you'd have to say "American, as in the continent".

Edit: The current official name of Brazil is Federative Republic of Brazil.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Not easy, I agree.

I've been without any Meta services for 2 years already. In my experience, people have been more understanding regarding that than I initially imagined.

I believe that the choice can be made so I did. I still think most people can. That doesn't mean I don't respect the reasons anyone might have to stay.

I just strongly disagree that people don't have a choice.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

I agree, but it's not like using Meta is mandatory. You can decide not to use their services.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago

This price is absurd, sure. Even if I trusted Meta, there's no way I'm paying that.

Having said that, they can charge whatever they want for the service. As company, their prices are up them.

I don't get why you (no OP specifically, but in general) put it as if you must pay or give up your rights. We can just not use Meta, as many of us already been doing.

GDPR should be there to protect and enforce informed consent. Not to remove people's ability to decide.

Why sholuld we regulate Meta's prices and not whatever other suscription service exists out there?

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That's true about fossil fuels. But it seems you're interpreting my comment as if I was defending the use of fossil fuels.

What I'm pointing out here is that the fact that hydroelectric energy production (although very clean) is not really an alternative for many countries as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is not a matter or decision lack of attention or investment. Many developed countries actually have most of their potential capacity installed, yet that accounts for very little of their electric demand. Take Germany as an example:

Germany had a hydropower installed capacity in 2016 of 11,258 MW (...). In the same year, the country generated 21.5 TWh from hydroelectric plants, representing about 3% of the country's total electricity generation.

The hydropower capacity in Germany is considered mature and the potential already almost completely exploited, with limited room for growth. In recent years, growth in capacity has mainly come from repowering of existing plants.

Source: Hydroelectricity in Germany

Of course, there's exceptions (% of total domestic electricity generation): Canada (59.0%), Norway (96%), Paraguay (100%) or Brazil (64.7%).

Actually, from what I can tell, hydro seem to be so convenient (it can be ramped up/down on-demand, used for storage, cheap) that most countries that can afford it tend to maximize their installed capacity to the extend their hydrography allows them to.

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

The thing with hydro is that it is limited by the hydrography of the country.

Once you've built all damns it was possible, that's it. And that usually only covers a just small portion of a country's energy needs.

view more: next ›

racsol

joined 1 year ago