RvTV95XBeo

joined 2 years ago
[–] RvTV95XBeo 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes but also stop using Google

[–] RvTV95XBeo 3 points 1 week ago

There's a reason why I never use Bing

[–] RvTV95XBeo 2 points 1 week ago

Because I'm buying the $8 option from a company called "XYBENOZ". Without reading the reviews I already know there's a 56% chance of failure, but I'm willing to take that risk because then it's Amazon's problem.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the fact that it suggests (pushes) the idea each time I use the website is just maddening

I don't think I've ever seen this suggestion. IDK where I clicked "STFU" but I only ever remember seeing something about it once.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Never used pocket, how does this differ from just having a bookmarks folder called "stuff to read while you're taking a shit"?

[–] RvTV95XBeo 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But the employees are fully able to make those communications on non-work platforms. This is Microsoft saying you can't talk about genocide using their name and branding. An official @microsoft.com email carries weight that a @hotmail.com email doesn't.

Is it a bad PR choice by them to crack down on internal discussion of genocide? Probably. But the employees are still free to speak elsewhere.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

My point wasn't to equivocate those two things, my point is free speech applies to censorship from the government.

By all means everyone should feel free to boycott Microsoft for taking a pro-genocide stance, but that's their stance to take as a company.

Microsoft is in the wrong here, but no one's right to free speech was violated.

[–] RvTV95XBeo -1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

NOAA believes this is an attempt by Microsoft to silence worker free speech

Not shilling for Microsoft here, but just reminding everyone that that's not how free speech works.

I'm all for those employees using their collective might through strikes or departures to get Microsoft to cave on this issue, but saying this violates employees freedom of speech is the exact same argument my racist uncle used when he got banned off Facebook.

Unionize and get it in your collective bargaining agreements, otherwise you have no free speech when it comes to your place of employment.

[–] RvTV95XBeo 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Shout out to algae cooking oil, weighing in at 535 F (280 C) https://algaecookingclub.com/products/algae-cooking-oil

I use it when cooking high heat, and also a few drops to season my cast iron

[–] RvTV95XBeo 0 points 2 weeks ago

First hit searching for "battery Jesus"

[–] RvTV95XBeo -2 points 2 weeks ago

Bread and butter are snacking pickles.

Dill or bust on a sandwich/burger.

 

Whatever happened to "states rights"?

231
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by RvTV95XBeo to c/[email protected]
 

The message is everywhere: You (alone) can save the planet

Choose a veggie burger instead of beef. Book this flight, not that one. Buy thrift over fast fashion. Shrink your "carbon footprint."

But here's what most people don't know: The very concept of a personal carbon footprint originated with oil giant British Petroleum (BP). In 2004, BP launched a carbon calculator to persuade people to measure their personal climate impacts. The campaign worked — shifting our collective gaze from fossil fuel companies, the biggest drivers of the climate crisis, to individuals like you and me.

Two decades later and with climate disasters rapidly intensifying, we're still caught in this sleight-of-hand. Choices made by corporations and governments continue to shape the speed and scale of climate disruption, while marketing campaigns around climate action try to shift our focus to consumer decisions.

New WRI research tells a different story. Our data shows that pro-climate behavior changes, such as driving less or eating less meat, could theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year^1^ — specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations.

But it also reveals that efforts focused exclusively on changing behaviors, and not the overarching systems around them, only achieve about one-tenth of this emissions-reduction potential. The remaining 90% stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)

...

Voting at both the national and local levels is key, as elections directly determine whether governments enable or hinder pro-climate behaviors.

...

Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.

WRI's research quantifies the individual actions that matter most. While people worldwide tend to vastly overestimate the impact of some highly visible activities, such as recycling, our analysis reveals four significant changes that deliver meaningful emissions reductions. In order of climate impact, these behaviors are:

  1. Shift to sustainable ground travel
  1. Shift to air travel alternatives
  1. Install residential solar and increase home energy efficiency
  1. Eat more plant-rich meals
view more: ‹ prev next ›