dgmib

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Amazing. I heard she also held the record for the youngest person alive at one time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

There is no year 0 AD. It goes for 1 BC to 1 AD.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago

What deference would it make if they did?

Moving sheep from on pasture land to another doesn’t change the emissions from these sheep.

The question is what happened to the land these sheep use to be on.

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

The thing I’m noting is not the part about Harris’s rising approval, but that it has increased the percentage of Trump supporters who are say they are “extremely motivated to vote” to 72%.

Approval ratings don’t matter if one side has a larger percentage of its voters actually voting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Canada’s population is expected to grow by 500~3000 people daily for the next few years.

Building 5000 units Canada wide is not going to even make a dent in the housing market much less destroy it.

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

There will definitely be someone trying to take his place.

But I’m old enough to remember the last 7 republican presidents and presidential nominees. None of them were like Trump.

They weren’t convicted felons, or impeached twice, or telling bold provably false lies daily. They didn’t double down on their lies when called out on it.

Some of them couldn’t find a coherent sentence without two hands and a flashlight but went on to be elected for two terms, while still managing not to recommend injecting bleach as a treatment for any medical condition.

Trump has something no Republican candidate in my lifetime (and probably ever) has, blind loyalty in the face of utterly ridiculous behaviour.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

What blows my mind 🤯

The landlords game has two different sets of rules you could play with. One set of rules was basically the same as the Monopoly we know today. When the game ends when one player acquires ownership of everything and bankrupts everyone else.

The other set of rules, called “prosperity”, involved a tax that redistributed wealth. The game ends when all players have doubled their original stake and everyone wins.

The game was intended to show how unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to a few billionaires owning everything and everyone else being poor/bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)

And compared it to the prosperity rules which were based on Georgism, a kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that both rewards people for the value they produce while also creating surplus public revenue that can be used to create social safety nets.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don’t worry he wasn’t lying to you, he was just presenting alternative facts .

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Your math checks out.

Charging a 600 mi battery in 9 minutes would require a charging station that can output somewhere north of 1.2 MW.

We need major upgrades to the electrical grid as well as doubling our electricity generation capacity for charging stations and vehicles like that to be common place.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

This is the trolley problem.

The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments that should be morally equivalent. In all variations, the reader can choose to take an action that will directly result in the death of an innocent person who was otherwise ‘safe’, or do nothing and allow a larger group of people to die, and ask what is the morally correct choice.

There’s no right answer to the trolley problem. The interesting take away is that what most people agree is the morally correct answer depends how the problem is framed.

When the situation is framed as “you’re deciding between one person dying and many people dying” most people will agree the morally correct choice is the one where the fewest people die.

But when the situation is framed as “are you justified in murdering an innocent person to save many” most people agree the morally correct answer is no.

There’s even one variation where is is considered by most morally correct to murder one person to save many, if the person you’re murdering is responsible for putting the larger group in harms way in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not like the country was massively relying on nuclear energy at any point in time really.

Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors were generating almost 30% of its electricity a decade ago before they started phasing them out. It was their second largest source of electricity after coal.

Despite having built literally 100s of solar and wind farms in the past decade they still had to increase their coal output by 40 TWh to make up for the gap. A nuclear reactor generates a fuck ton of electricity.

And for what? Statically speaking 800x more people are killed in coal mining accidents per TWh generated than are killed by all nuclear power accidents combined. They phased out their largest source of carbonless electricity and the decision likely killed more people than would have died even if there was a nuclear accident.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I bought a dashcam for my vehicle, and choose to use it to protect myself from false accusations.

Body cams should be like dash cams, something used by employees to exonerate the person wearing them.

I’m not a LEO, and I can respect that maybe it’s not this simple.. but I would expect “honest” cops to voluntarily wear one to protect themselves from false accusations of abuse of power.

But when it crosses over from protecting the employee to big brother watching over you that’s the line.

Body cams used to protect the wearer - Good Body cams used to punish the wearer - Bad

view more: next ›