How so?
Bedside table.
Maybe 50 years old.
Comments of no substance on the side of popular opinion get upvotes, and waves of downvotes come for anyone who disagrees even a little, and even if they do it in a reasonable way.
Lemmy seems much worse for this than reddit TBH.
There's a number of topics about which any dissent is met with vehement derision. As in those engaging in wrong think are assholes.
I don't really know of course but I suspect it's because lemmy has a narrower demographic than reddit. Opinions are just generally more homogeneous. I guess I'm describing an echo chamber.
It's not that your intuition doesn't make a graph, it's that I have a strong suspicion that Gretas efforts at "raising awareness" are counter productive.
She's precisely the wrong type of person to influence the kind of people who need to change their behaviour. She's great at preaching to the choir, but that's not going to save us.
Activism for the sake of activism is counter productive, because it makes people feel like they've done something to address the problem.
Excuse me while I go update my Facebook profile photo with whatever banner makes me look clever this week.
She is just trying to raise awareness (and it made some progress)
You don't have any evidence of that though do you. Everyone's aware of climate change.
despite all the wrong things you think about her, true or not
This is kind of my point about Lemmy users. I haven't said anything bad about her, but my comment was not vapid loyalty so here we are.
Do you hate living on a planet with fewer disasters that much?
This is a really silly question.
Do you hate people who try to make the world a better place?
I don't hate people who try, but I get very frustrated by people who want to celebrate ineffective trying.
There are people who are actually making progress on mitigating the impacts of climate change. Greta is not one of them.
I didn't say I don't agree with her. I'm saying she doesn't have any special credibility. I'd rather hear from an expert on climate change and mitigation thanks.
Exactly.
Communication with people is hard enough already without an LLM deciding what parts are important.
Idiots using LLMs to write emails to people using LLMs to summarise them. It's just slop all the way down.
this sounds great. thanks for the tip!
I think I already have pinchflat. Didn't know sponsorblock worked for podcasts. Thanks!
You can't make vaccinations "mandatory", but you can make them the basic benchmark for participation in society.
In Ontario and New Brunswick, proof of vaccination is already required for children to attend school. But parents can get an exemption in both provinces for medical, religious or philosophical reasons, as long as they fill out a form.
This right here is the problem. Kids should need vaccinations to go to school or to receive government benefits of any kind, unless there is a firm medical reason that precludes them. Religious or philosophical excuses are not sufficient. If you don't want to get vaccinated then you don't want to participate in modern society.
I don't think that this is really what this article is about.
The media is whipping up a frenzy saying that this is a tax grab. Really it's a mild tax on the very wealthy.
I think using brands as verbs might be very normalised in the US but it's less common elsewhere.
It's not offensive but it's... jarring or noticeable.
Here no one would say whatsapped or telegramed or signalled. It's just messaged.
null_dot
0 post score0 comment score
A delicate issue, but again - it's a basic prerequisite for participation in contemporary society.
It would be unethical to allow an exemption on those grounds.