World News

39174 readers

2251 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1709

‘I’ve never seen heat this bad. It’s not normal’: Italy struggles as temperature tops 40C 118f (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

525 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don't know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your "example" is made up and hence meaningless. It's as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

What you've done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn't exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you've read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don't pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning.

Of course. So what?

I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said.

Not a rebuttal, just a response.

My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless.

I could have used p and (1-p) with p between 0.1 and 0.9. Still wouldn't be meaningless.

It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

It would be wrong and the example where most of the work is done through "brown" means wouldn't be. For my example I don't need anything more specific.

Internet pseudointellectualism is so cute.

What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works

I'm sure I know how things to which I refer work sufficiently for this kind of conversation, to some extent I just like allowing the opponent to present all the fallacies they'd like while seeming rhetorically all right. It indicates whether they are arguing in good faith.

If somebody is arguing in good faith, they'll make an effort to extract something they agree with from the opponent, and make assumptions in favor of that opponent in unclear cases, otherwise the usual.

is not based on reality

So in reality most of the production backing your money as its accepted equivalent is being done by green means?

Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

The burden of proof that this cost is bigger than the indirect cost I'm talking about is on you. Since I've said only that it may or may not justify particular green means, and you were arguing with that. Apparently that anything green is always better? I don't know what you were trying to say.