AntY

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

This is so annoying that it’s almost funny.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Truefitt and Hill makes a fantastic aftershave balm that I find greatly reduces razor burn and ingrown hairs. For my hands I use lanolin, it’s a bit greasy but works wonders for dry hands.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

It’s really common here in Sweden. “Bastuflotte” we call them and there are a couple in every lake around where I live.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Damnit, I was hoping for Turkey to reject us!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I think that the key word here is moderately sized. If I would guess, the optimum could be somewhere around 5’000 to 75’000 inhabitants. With those numbers you would probably not need any public transport within the city since you could bike or walk everywhere. At the same time you will be able to support some local shops for the most essential goods.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The municipality where I live made a study on green house gas emissions by where people lived. Curiously, the people living in the city center where those with the largest environmental footprint and those living more than 20 km away from the city caused the least emissions. They claimed that the difference was mainly due to lifestyle. People in the city tended to travel more by plane, ate food that had been prepared in restaurants rather than making it themselves, shopped more clothes and so on.

When there was a bus strike in the same city, air quality improved markedly. I suspect that those who take the bus in this particular city are those who would’ve otherwise biked (university students in Europe).

Living in a city comes with certain limitations to what you can do in your weekends. You can easily go out to consume and thus cause emissions. When living in the countryside, you can walk to the closest lake and fish your dinner without any emissions. Pretending that cities is the most environmentally friendly place to live is to ignore what people do except working, sleeping and traveling between the two.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

I called an associate professor by a common nickname derived from his actual name, thing is that it draws the thought to some drug addict from the 70’s. When I got my phd, he took to calling me by my title as a revenge.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I mean, with centralization going the way that it’s going we will end up there. If the cost of living in densely populated places is so high, I think it hints at an inefficiency with the arrangement. Maybe people should live in fields and bogs a bit more?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago

I had to use a Windows 11 computer a couple of days ago. I can identify with this meme.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (8 children)

I’m not totally convinced that huge super-cities is the best way for society to move forward. Maybe we need more small towns and people living in the countryside.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

This is incredibly sad.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 7 months ago (18 children)

The main difference between the two in your analogy, that has great bearing on this particular problem, is that the machine learning model is a product that is to be monetized.

view more: ‹ prev next ›