Thanks!

Thank you - that’s a really useful answer. I’ll check them out

Thank you - I’ll have a look at that

Now imagine that, but onions

This is greenwashing. Global aviation uses almost 100 billion gallons of fuel per year. If we even began to address a fraction of that with magic new fuels (which won’t happen) it would require incredible amounts of growing, and if we had that sort of amount of agricultural capacity available on this planet, capable of producing crops at a price the aviation industry is prepared to pay, we wouldn’t have any hunger on the world.

Don’t fall for this. There isn’t such a thing as green aviation. I’m not saying there should be no flying, but we can’t carry on as we are and magic away the consequences. In particular, don’t fall for the snake oil salesmen trying to distract you with appealing non-solutions

At this stage it’s a trope that people imitate, perhaps without really thinking about it. Originally it was almost certainly an ironic joke about the value of the medals, playing on the old-fashioned bite tests that would be used for for items of dubious worth

“can be” is doing some heavy lifting here. I confidently predict the amount actually recycled is a fraction of one percent

Here’s a really good analysis of how it’s not true the Boomers have all the money - there are lots of very comfortable Millennials too. It’s more complicated than people like to think

The problem is that the populist, nationalist right tends to be good in opposition, because they can shout simplistic slogans and don’t have to actually deliver anything.

I wonder if my colleagues have picked up on the fact that when I start an email “Dear-” rather than “Hi-”, it means I’m annoyed with them

Yes. The “Cyclists don’t use cycle lanes” line also comes right from the angry right list of grievances. If there’s a cycle lane and people aren’t using it, it’s self-evidently not good enough. And this is hardly surprising when most cycle lanes are cheap afterthoughts that increase danger and inconvenience

Kagi is good, but for rare topics try search.marginalia.nu

There’s a fair bit of published work on this. 33 senses is a common number but there are others who’ve claimed up to 53

Remember, it’s only terrorism if you’re suggesting LESS fossil fuels and environmental degredation.

You can buy very convincing stickers that make your frame look rusty

Jesus Christ people are still thinking of voting Rees Mogg in as their MP. They should just expand Chew Lake and flood the whole area - it has nothing to offer to humanity now

https://lemmy.world/c/running

Don’t ask online strangers for medical advice. Go to a doctor if you’re worried

Comparison with current excitement about AI is interesting. Look at the language people use to describe the behaviour of LLMs

You seem to be suggesting that because some level of risk is inevitable, any level of risk is acceptable. There’s a big difference between minimal practical risk and reckless levels of risk, but your construction doesn’t capture that with its crude binary of “risk or no driving”. We could drive with far less risk, eg enforcing speed limits with technology