Depends on context, which I think is missed in basically all these discussions. Solar, wind, and hydropower are obviously contextually dependent technologies, that are well suited to particular environments. They have to line up with energy demand curves, or else impose expensive and inefficient battery solutions. They don't have a whole lot of efficiency in terms of land use, which there are some proposed solutions for, but they're pretty efficient both economically, and are pretty ecologically contentious as long as recycling is being done adequately. Nuclear solves a different problem. It provides base load, which is somewhat important, it's potentially not as flexible as a technology, but it's easier to build infrastructure for because it's more consistent. It can also be somewhat land-use agnostic, though things like water use for cooling towers and tradeoffs such as that are definitely a consideration. It's also much denser in terms of land use, meaning it's potentially more efficient for larger cities.

They're both just different technologies, with different applications, and they both have a place in any sensible structuring of the world. I don't understand why people become so split along the obvious astroturfed and petrol-funded propaganda that floats around for both sides. You have pro-nuclear people that are saying solar panels like, require exotic materials mines, which is insanely ironic, and you have solar people who are fearmongering about solved problems like nuclear waste and safety concerns and efficiency in terms of economic cost, which is also insanely ironic. The fact that this conflict comes up every time strikes me as kind of horrendously stupid and obviously favorable to petrol lobbies.

I say all that in my comment, but, it's not just that this guy is a techbro, there are some other factors that make it so he's probably the guy. With those, I just think that it's probably more likely that this is the guy, than that it isn't. I don't really see a need to theorize that this isn't the guy based on how the guy in the video is some sort of crazy criminal mastermind, when he also hits up a starbucks right before, as well as a bunch of other evidence in the video itself that this is probably a somewhat average, if maybe uncommon, guy. i.e. it easily could just be a techbro.

From what the news has told us, which is really all we have, this guy fits the bill pretty solidly. We'll see with the dna, ballistics, and fingerprint, but we also know that's historically not really conclusive evidence either. The best you could do is that this guy fits the specific timeline, which we've heard less about relative to everything else, though from what we have heard, he does seem to fit pretty well. This entire issue, the issue of being able to conclusively tell who's done a crime at what time, that's part of why the justice system needs reform, because it's very likely that you could just get this all wrong. I can acknowledge that reality, and also acknowledge that, based on what is publicly available so far, this guy is probably the guy.

I dunno, the idea that this random guy, who's reading and posting shit about the unabomber's manifesto on his goodreads, and happened to be passing through new york via hostel and then greyhound at this time, is just some random guy, I dunno. With modern social media, I think we really start to strain credibility that this isn't the guy. You would have to have a very convenient fall guy for that to be the case. It probably would've been easier to just catch any random schizo techbro inside of new york and then throw a gun and prewritten manifesto at that guy, to be honest, if the nypd or fbi just wanted some random dude to bag and throw away to pretend like they're capable. Like you said, you could find them by the thousands.

Because for the majority of the world, the average American is a selfish bourgeois with a big house and two cars, who thinks oppression is when the gas price rise.

I mean I fucking live here and that's pretty much my assessment as well to be honest. Maybe not your average american if we're working on like, who's right just based on home ownership statistics, but certainly, that's not really an invalid perception.

if it ends up being like the steam deck layout, they'll probably just fuse the touch screens into one larger one in the center of the controller, towards the bottom. At that point, it would probably just be pretty similar to the playstation controller, but with slightly more questionable ergonomics, or maybe a more usable touchscreen.

So, we can wring our hands about how awful our fellow man is for not seeing the clear moral imperative that we do (exactly like the Genocide-Joe folks have been doing for months), or we can recognize that Dems need to start doing things differently.

no no, don't you understand? the american voter is just too racist, because they voted for donald trump, so we just need to tack harder to the right, I mean the center, actually I do just mean the right. then, surely, they will vote for the democratic party in overwhelming, obama-era numbers.

blue maga and blueanon wasn't just a sort of tongue in cheek name, it was also an accurate description. we've seen this shit burgeoning up, to me, most notably with the people who were adamant that trump didn't actually get shot and it was all a PR stunt. been lost in the sauce for a while.

Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade.

Sturdy trees WOULD be good for the city, yeah. Unfortunately we've decided to, in basically every major city (at least here in NA and I suspect other places), plant non-native trees that have low survival rates and are basically all male. Being male, they tend to also shit pollen basically everywhere. I'd imagine you could deal with the fruit falling to the ground in a number of ways, as well. Could put some canopy underneath the fruiting trees, as to collect the fruit more easily, you could just pay people to come and collect enough of the fruit for use in things like applesauce that the rest of the fruit really presents no issue as far as just sort of rotting and draining into the ground. You could set up a bunch of easy disposal compost boxes every couple feet, so you can just sweep all the fruit up and throw it into that.

I suspect a larger problem would probably be that inside of the city the fruit would be exposed to more than an acceptable amount of brake dust, including that which drains into the planter box, and would maybe not get enough light, but I think those are generally problems we should be solving anyways since they don't disappear just because we decide not to plant fruit trees. Brake dust on the fruit or carcinogens inside the fruit means that those things are also going to be going into your lungs.

nah.

I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline "we must support israel" voters, which I don't think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it's a lie that she's gonna get called out on later and then that's politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won't lie so handily unless they're real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn't do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you're sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.

this is THE first time I've seen a link to a mastodon page anywhere on my lemmy feed. insane

I just mean that I don't think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I'd say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they're not genuinely engaging anymore, I've seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

Do you want to give me any real material or are we done here? You have class in like two hours dude you're gonna be late