Not how language works… Like, there are no hard lines, its just whatever can communicate the idea you want to communicate. You really don’t want to go down the road of demanding coherent and strict definitional categories for all words, and if you don’t demand it for all words, then you’re being a pedant for fully arbitrary reasons (the worst kind of pedantry).

I love general outlook on life. Mine always peaks at about the fourth mile on a bike, and hits the lowest valley at the fourtieth mile in a car (though in a car worse means faster.)

Yeah, reduced lifespan is a killer. I don’t think that relates to efficiency though, its a separate and known problem. Both lifespan and efficiency are needed.

Underrated comment.

Most Americans also don’t know about them. Its rather sad, cause as far as I understand, they were one of the most successful groups both from a communist and from an anti-racism perspective.

They were a group of black people who went around and did stuff for their local black communities. Specifically in this case, we’re referring to how they would ride around and watch cops so that they wouldn’t brutalize black community members. They also did food for kids and stuff like that. They got shut down by the FBI because they were feeding too many people (quite literally, the FBI admitted to it, look it up).

This too!

does that imply that there are stoat monks which are called Stonks?

Ok, I didn’t say efficient, I said effective. I said AI images are less effective than manually created ones, and I stand by that. Honestly, if that guy is sourcing his data ethically, more power to him.

Ok, here’s my perspective. I hate Gen-AI (specifically and solely the generative kind), I think in nearly 100% of its use cases there are more effective and more ethical solutions. Its really sketchy to me for any artist to be using or supporting AI with/in their work. My understanding is that while training the AI does take significant server farm work (on a similar scale to like, storing the data for streaming video), the actual AI model produced is relatively small, and therefore doesn’t take that much energy to run. So, good on them for doing environmental work, my hangups will entirely be on the ethical side of their AI usage.

That’s certainly a win, I hope we can get the same for oil. But maybe a lil faster please?

Yeah, I think a lot of people don’t realize this. I say as I wait for my econ 101 class to start.

Yeah, I think this is the enlightened way of looking at it. We need to do all the things, all at the same time for maximum possible mitigation.

I mean, to people who can see it properly, its a really funny joke, but yeah, its annoying if you can’t.

Honestly, its probably just a nitpick, but its mostly a framing thing.

The only distinction here is that in Africa, this is mostly about access to energy (which is one of the key factors in standard of living increases), whereas in most of the “Global North” renewables are mostly about reducing energy consumption (via efficiency) and consuming it in ways that don’t impact the environment as much (i.e. replacing the same amount of fossil fuel derived energy).

The primary benefit here is that people who couldn’t access energy before now can. They aren’t really offsetting emissions because there wasn’t a previously established fossil fuel energy generation capacity that was generating nearly as much energy as the new solar capacity is.

Either way, the human livelihood benefits are amazing and it is good that we can get them without expanding fossil fuels. Its good on both sides and entirely a framing nitpick on my part.

I’d heard about this before. I’m reluctant to even call this a climate thing. While its certainly good for the climate if Africa isn’t reliant on fossil fuels, the primary thing here is that its an improvement to people’s lives, not that it reduces emissions.

Amazing work though.

No, they don’t want anyone on a bike. (Even though if people go from bike lanes to being in cars that will be even more of an inconvenience.)

But that’s not catchy

Or rather, the vast majority of pollution is created by a relatively small set of companies on behalf of the vast majority of people in the world (or at least in certain wealthy countries.) I.E. oil companies which generate oil used to power plants that generate electricity and plastic that are used by ordinary people, whose options are restricted such that they are reliant on the set of companies generating pollution. Thus, people need to reduce their reliance on (and therefore usage of) said industries (which would stop operating (and thus polluting) if they were not used), but can’t do so without cooperation from governments that are often paid off by the corporations generating the pollution. The wealthy generate pollution corporately, not individually, most climate actions will necessarily affect the average person, because they will affect corporations whose actions have an unjust effect on the lives of the average individual…

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. We need to do all the things at the same time. We need corporations to change their ways (which means boycotts, protest, and likely sabotage), we need governments to do their share (which means voting, protests, and general civic engagement at all levels), and we need consumers to accept that their lifestyles will have to change.

To actually make those changes to consumer behavior, we need good public policy decisions and for corporations to not obstruct things. Without good governmental policy, consumers will not be able to make those switches. Without consumer behavior changes and good governmental policy, corporations will kill any chance at change.

(I do think the framing could be better, but I don’t think blaming the working class is a good description of what’s happening.)