If it’s certain politics then !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world might fit. Like “This didn’t age well” takes
Actually, on the topic of news that doesn’t age well, if something like an Elon Musk deadline ticked over, I wonder where you could post that
It’s not a suit but there is plenty I’ve done in jeans:
It’s not that hard, people just have this idea of certain clothes being appropriate and it seems to extend into this idea that they’re also necessary. Admittedly, I wouldn’t recommend these, but if there is something I want to do and I only have jeans then 🤷♂️
This comment is basically all the other answers but shorter…
Yeah, I get that. It seems to me that it’s relying on parties in power doing things that limit their power so I was just saying it seems risky
Ahh… “rather” reads as a point contrasted to the comment? So what are you expecting comes after questioning why the oil subsidies still exist?
It might be an uneven law that needed review but for now at least, isn’t this change aligned with Citizens United in the US and hasn’t that had some famous consequences we are kind of living through? I’m not arguing the law should be unevenly applied, just that for now there seems to be risk
It seems to be evidence of vowels and consonants, not evidence for complex grammar like the title might imply
There are improvements but physics and chemistry kick in at some point. I don’t know enough to presume where that point is, but you seem to be presuming that the limits for sodium will be better than lithium and I’m not seeing any evidence provided, just faith. May as well work with the reality we have while we see how that pans out. Like someone else said, we recycle a lot of lead from lead batteries, we didn’t stop when lithium batteries came along
How is that the perfect example?
Shouldn’t it open up the question “why do these subsidies still exist and can we phase them out” not “subsidies are bad”?
Kickstarting new infrastructure is one place government money tends to work well. You can always phase out the subsidies and there is an argument that battery tech benefited from a feedback loop (used in phones until infra and tech was cheap enough for cars+) and something needs to kickstart that for their recycling, government stepping in to start that loop isn’t uncommon or as terrible as you seem to be making it out
Where is “libshit” written?
Why jump to tankie here?
I don’t think the title is amazing here. The “race” seemed dramatic and a bit confusing for me. It’s referring to conservation though (actually little of the article seems to be science focused so the “understand” is a bit misleading too). Here’s a quote after it goes through a long winded intro:
This interest in conserving fungi has been spurred in part by increasing evidence that they play a far larger role in how ecosystems function than was previously understood: 90% of plants on Earth rely on fungi to supply them with crucial nutrients, and newer evidence is increasingly pointing to the key role that fungi play in helping maintain a stable climate.
Would they? Didn’t they splinter from the same party? They seem better, but what gives you faith they would reduce their power like that?
And in this case, I’m not convinced that the government setting prices and supplies, like in communism, would have helped since most people seemed to not think this was not a huge risk and really didn’t expect the US to ignore simulations and blaze ahead quite this unconcerned for negative outcomes.
But this isn’t worst case. Its something like 20% supply so things are more expensive for a while and for as long as people see this as a risk people will work to improve other transport options
Also, here is a simple alternative view:
You have a water tank that you share with a neighbour and a pipe you share to your house.
A storm hits and the pipe is damaged.
You both could have buried the pipe deeper, or made a backup pipe but you chose not to. Not a great capitalist failure: it’s thinking the risk wasn’t high so not spending your time on something you think you don’t need. You’re also not dying of thirst, you can still walk out and bucket water, it’s just slower and more problematic.
Not a perfect analogy bit wow on parts of this thread
Going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole:
[Portland, Maine] was formally founded in 1786 and named after the English Isle of Portland. In turn, the city of Portland, Oregon, was named after Portland, Maine.
I failed at finding how the Isle of Portland got its name but saw this:
In Dorset, England:
The origin of the name “Portland” on the Isle of Portland is uncertain, but theories include:
- It may be a corruption of the Celtic word “Port Lann” (“harbor by the cliff”).
- It may derive from the Old English “portelond” (“land by the harbor”).
- It may refer to a fortified harbor or headland.
https://etymologyworld.com/item/portland
Its the first time I’ve seen the site though and that page feels a bit AI generated
That does validate this comment:
https://lemmy.zip/comment/25702290
Seemed like a pretty simple offline first app (contrasted to the usual online first app) to me so I don’t really know what could help. I suspect the app needs feedback from those people or people that invested time walking those people through the mental switch
I’d argue the UI is simple. You zoom into a place and it offers to download. Like all maps you can click to zoom to your location and that will trigger the correct download too
I travel a lot so download more than most and the UI is simple, it’s just offline first not online first. The video creator seemed to have an ideological issue with that and didn’t try but when they did, they liked it. I find videos like this infuriating though so probably missed some points.
It’s not impossible an initial modal could help here but I’ve used it too long to know and it’s pretty easy to click through to report a bug for anyone reading this that is new to the app and was confused but still remembers what would have helped
I’d argue the flak was unevenly distributed since this is effectively the same point:
https://lemmy.world/comment/23261120