No, the comment you’re replying to says “If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop”
They’re agreeing with you, I think you must have misread should as shouldn’t or something like that. It’s easily done :) I was just a bit confused reading the comment and reply.
I think you misread the comment you’re replying to?
I fucking hate Teracopy with a vengeance. It’s such a buggy piece of shit. I have never seen it not fuck up and crash when you ask it to do something remotely challenging.
Robocopy is the only thing I use for serious file copy/move jobs.
Federal Trade Commission is maintaining its opposition to the deal but it cannot prevent Microsoft and Activision from completing it
Wasn’t the FTC specifically created to block/prevent corporate mergers to stop companies from becoming too big?
I reckon you’re 100% on the money here. The big tobacco companies push all this drama and concern about the health effects so that everyone thinks the industry needs to be more regulated, that allows them to kill off the smaller competition and push up prices.
Our society is fucking falling apart. A massive cost of living crisis, food bank usage is at an all time high, the gap between rich and poor has never been higher, entire generations are completely unable to buy a home, each year breaks through the ceiling for “hottest year on record”, we’re completely blasting past the paris climate accords, still massively subsidising fossil fuels, inflation is absurd, the NHS is falling apart, along with every other public service, and Brexit is not only hugely unpopular but is actively damaging our opportunities.
And what bold, decisive answers does Labour have to solve these problems?
close ties with business and a “competitive tax regime” to solve the housing crisis
not go back into the EU
not rejoin the single market or a customs union
not re-establishing freedom of movement
not committing to investing in renewables or other green policies
prioritising “””efficiency””” in the NHS, refusing to increase funding until they’ve undertaken an assessment
focusing on “””economic growth””” rather than green policy (which means sacrificing the environment for the benefit of the wealthy)
“getting people back into work rather than increasing their benefits“
“Deploy the power of artificial intelligence“ to help fix the NHS
ruling out any sort of wealth tax or increasing taxes for the wealthy
Labour under Starmer inspires no hope or enthusiasm whatsoever. They’re literally the party of, “I guess they’re technically not the Tories”. But make no mistake, they’re running on a right wing platform.
Labour claim to be “for the many, not the few”, but that’s not true. They’re “for the money, and none for you”.
If you want to vote for them because they’re better than the far-right Tories, you go ahead and do that, be my guest.
But I’m not going to be voting for a right wing party next election.
“The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”
I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.
When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.
It’s not the first of its kind though. It’s just the first in Africa. There are already a bunch of these in Europe and America.
If the researchers are in Europe then it doesn’t work for the plant to be in Africa. I don’t know why you’re arguing such an obviously wrong position lol
Governments are probably already directly influencing Lemmy with the usual astroturfing at the very least
See, what you’re having trouble with here is that you don’t want to support censorship, even though you do. You don’t like the connotations, so you find some excuse that makes it more comfortable for you. It’s cowardly and dishonest. The word means what it means. Call me a pedant, tell me I’m not adding to the conversation, I don’t care. You’re still supporting censorship whether you want to wear that label or not.
The term predates that usage by well over 2000 years. Roman censors would essentially punish people for immoral behaviour by taking away their rights or by reducing their status in some way - for example, punishing them for speaking out of turn or publishing offensive material.
Sure, I’m happy to support building large scale experimental establishments to test the theories, but that’s not what this is at all. This is a commercial installation in Africa, of all places. Why would the European research teams build a research facility so far away? That doesn’t make sense.
100% renewable is absolutely achievable and viable, according to many industry expert ye including the IEC. Arguing otherwise is fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Nuclear energy isn’t really part of the solution. It can continue to exist as it currently does but building more nuclear power isn’t going to help, it’s too expensive and too slow to provision. The best solution is to double, triple or quadruple funding/investment in renewables and infrastructure. That’s very achievable and the most viable option.
That’s what everybody said about solar / renewables
I don’t think that’s true, can you back up your claim?
we’re going to need the technology
I support research and development of the technology, because it’s something which could be useful in the future. But this article is about building carbon capture facilities today, which is a big waste of money.
Censorship usually is taken to mean the suppression of speech or writing. If you’re legally prohibited from saying or writing something, you’re being censored, by definition.
Where are you getting your definition of censorship as meaning content being edited?
This comment is well reasoned. Carbon capture is worth continued development and research, it should be a long-term goal once we have moved to 100% renewable sources of energy, until that point it’s just wasteful to spend money on this where it would better be spent on provisioning more renewables or infrastructure as you very rightly point out.
Yep, carbon capture, much like nuclear, isn’t cost efficient. Investments in electrical infrastructure in Africa should be the top priority there, they still predominantly use paraffin fuel for lighting and other combustibles for cooking and heating. The main issue there is infrastructure rather than energy production. But rolling out energy infrastructure isn’t sexy and profitable so it’s low priority for these capitalist monsters haha
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Carbon capture is a big waste of time and money.
Do you think that Facebook doesn’t cost money to build or run?
A crappy years-old ARM-powered smartphone SOC stuck inside a TV costs next to nothing.