[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You can always make a bridge/hotspot that will do what you need. You are only limited if you are fussy about pocket/backpack space.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Worked for no problem, over Tor in fact. Usually Tor gets the most hostile treatment.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

Banks abuse our privacy in countless ways. This could fill a book. This policy amounts to forced banking. I boycott banks. Banks have us by the balls and they abuse that power. A bank recently told me (in effect) to fuck off if I don’t have a mobile phone number to give them.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That’s net (take-home pay), not gross. Tax is high enough that you need to double that figure (€4,400) to get the gross pay. And just wait till you account for inflation, which the EU cash limits apparently fail to account for.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The emphasis should be on “social”. There are many facets to the problem but the social problem (individuals neglecting to act as they wait on systemic action) is the problem of my focus. The hope that Trump does not get reelected in 1 year and set back global systemic action for 4 years is a bit problematic.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, but insufficiently so, and as I said much more slowly. Why wait? And why needlessly emit GHG as you wait?

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I would like to add that refusal to “ditch their car” is ignoring a glaring problem: Many cities are not walkable, and/or people live too far away from employment to choose cleaner options.

That’s not an oversight. Choosing to live and work in places that do not require a car is part of the act of ditching the car. Indeed, ditching the car is not as simple as selling the car in many cases.

In my case ditching the car meant vacating the shitty car-clusterfucked city I was in. I switched to public transport for a few years then realized that’s just a baby step (a city bus with just 5 people is as bad as 5 cars each with 1 person). So from there I migrated to a bicycle.

It’s not guaranteed to be a positive experience or produce a “climate-friendly” change in mindset.

Indeed it’s not for everyone. And in fact it’s somewhat late. The study shows that those who take psilocybin before they reach the age 35 are for the rest of their lives more open minded. I don’t think you can easily refute that. The leap I’ve made from there by saying open-mindedness is conducive to adapting to a changing world (being flexible about changing one’s own lifestyle) is probably not far-fetched. But certainly it’s not for everyone.

Prediction: meditation will become more popular and the short-cut (psilocybin) will become a more and more liberated option in the future. It will make populations more adaptable to a changing world and future crises. At this point, I can see psilocybin helping people better adapt to a fully played out climate impact 20 years from now.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is indeed useful when that rejection gives a built-in way of moving your business to another bank that’s less reckless with excessive data collection.

But it does not always work out that way. I refused to answer a needless intrusive interrogation and it had no effect (which also proves the interrogation was not necessary). The bank likely made a note of my refusal… perhaps to try to use against me. They really want you to believe you’re required to answer those questions. In any case, it obviously makes sense to avoid the banks that show signs of over-collection because it hints that there could be more excessive collections going on with that bank. E.g. when you call the bank, some banks will initiate a spontaneous interrogation unrelated to the reason for your call.

There are countless ethical reasons to do as many transactions in cash as possible. If a bank were to show me the door for doing too many withdrawals, then it would actually be a feature. You don’t want your money in a bank who is protectionist against runs on the bank. It’s better to bank where your money is not trapped.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.

This is covered by 31 C.F.R. § 103.121, which requires:

  1. name
  2. date of birth
  3. residential address
  4. identification number (SSN for natural US persons)

That’s it. They don’t need your IP address and they do not need to track your realtime whereabouts. That may sound baffling because banks often demand much more info than that. The Patriot Act tells banks they can collect more information for KYC purposes. This ensures that customers cannot sue their banks for data over-collection. So when the bank says “we need to know where you work, how much you earn, what your profession is, etc, because ‘Patriot Act’…”. They’re being sneaky and misleading. They do not have to collect all that info, but they can, if they want. And they often want excessive amounts of info because it’s profitable. Since there is no GDPR in the US, banks can misrepresent the purpose of data collection. They can say “we collect that info for KYC/Patriot Act” when they actually just want to feed their market research.

Some banks allow Tor logins thus demonstrating that it’s legally compliant.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

On page 8 there is a claim that switching to an EV reduces CO₂ emissions, but they probably don’t realize that the old car just gets shipped to Africa where it continues emitting indefinitely.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Of course it’s important to keep in mind the most green is probably to not bank at all -- something I’m experimenting with myself. Then the only notable GHG would be from the armored cars.

From this page:

[T]he average U.S.-based adult with a bank account can reduce their estimated annual banking footprint by 76% by moving their money from the average carbon-intensive bank to the average climate-responsible bank.

Even national central banks are investing in fossil fuels.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

Sure but when it comes to investment using public money the worst options need not make the cut. You can count on people to blow copious amounts of their own money on the convenience and luxury of EVs. Public money should be focused on cycling infrastructure in the most full-blown way possible. And if there is still money to spend, then public transit. #fuckCars.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

activistPnk

joined 1 year ago