It is superior if letting the forest grow means using fossil fuels. That was the point of my comment. It releases CO2, but only once and then is sustainable without additional CO2.
Of course, having the forest and e.g. nuclear power would be even better but that does not work very well for mobile applications, such as vehicles.
Also, heaven is an absolute monarchy. The fact so many commies don’t even see the difference between communism and a monarchy should tell you all you need to know.
Not really. Sure, China is able to make unpopular decisions better then democracies, but that makes them inefficient in different directions. E.g. high speed rail in areas where it is not needed but greatly lacking freight trains. Or their housing bubble.
You’re defending him—intentionally or not—because you’re giving legitimacy to the idea that, somehow, the party that kicked him out is in the wrong.
Yeah, I am tired of this shit. My entire comment repeatedly spells out that criticizing one party does not mean supporting the other. Both FDO and Vaxry can be in the wrong. If you can’t even comprehend that, there is nothing else to talk about.
First off, I don’t know anything about Vaxry or the Hyperland community, so I am definitely not defending him or implying it is not bad or anything of the sorts. I am saying the public reasoning for the ban is manufactured BS, and I am pretty sure that is because it is hard to call yourself “free” anything if you want to police peoples behavior unrelated to your project.
If you think projects should do such policing, that’s fine. It even makes sense, if you ignore the potential for misuse. But they certainly shouldn’t advertise themselves as free. It’s the hypocrisy of trying to do both by manufacturing an excuse I am calling out.
As for the rest of what you write, I feel it all comes to the same unhinged idea that because someone is a bad person, everything they touch, create or any person engaging with them is also bad.
I dislike Brave, and it’s founder. Doesn’t mean everything Brave does is bad or can’t be promoted by me as good. If you choose to not do it for your personal beliefs, that is fine. But the idea that I am not allowed to praise Brave browser features or other actions because of something unrelated its founder did or said is ridiculous.
EDIT: Regarding your edit, yes. I criticize parts of DEI or stupid anti-Trump arguments. That’s the whole point. Stupid arguments are stupid even if a good person is making them and good arguments are good, even if evil person like Trump makes them. Parts of DEI can be bad, even though discrimination is also bad. The world is not black and white.
EDIT2: Here is my post on DEI if anyone wants to read it and decide for themselves whether it is reasonable criticism or not.
So it’s not just the PR, it is also him interacting with “the wrong people”. Because it is so unthinkable to post about another browser developer while developing a browser regardless of politics. Idk anything about Andreas Kling, maybe he is a bad person, but the reasoning in your comment seems unhinged to me.
PS: Maybe off topic, but FDO reasoning for banning Vaxry is also wild. FDO admits he never broke the CoC on their platforms, then the CoC enforcement sends him a threatening email demanding he moderates his community differently and when he pushes back and says he will ignore this person sending unsolicited threatening emails, that is a reason to ban him. Because somehow this unsolicited threatening email is somehow considered part of FDO. Literally manufacturing a cause…
Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,
I literally wrote that I would support some form of socialism. That is not sarcasm. I am not talking about one example, I am talking about economic and game theory principles.
If you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism. The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.
Comparing all capitalism to the US is the same as comparing all socialism to the Soviet Union.
There are plenty social democracies in Europe. I advocate for spreading those and making incremental improvements to them where appropriate.
“We don’t accept ideologically motivated changes” = White supremacist language…
Yeah, blame the Russians. As if the Russian revolutionaries were not fighting for the same ideals you believe in. Just by not realizing that eliminating capitalists concentrated all the power in the government and handed power to Stalin on a silver platter.
Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group, you have my support. Until then, I will keep the safe assumption that socialists have zero idea what they are talking about and would lead us to doom if we gave them the chance.
I don’t own much capital, but I live in a post communist country and I sure as hell don’t want to experience the shit our country already went through once.
Then go ahead and start one :D Good luck finding a bank that gives you an unsecured loan to start a business.
Then it is not equally owned as the title says.
I also want to receive stuff for free.
Who doesn’t want to join a co-op and receive shares of the company for free. Almost no one wants to start a co-op, financing it, taking risks and responsibilities only to give shares away for free and gain nothing in exchange.
A very good question.
It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon © in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don’t really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.
So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you “recycle” the same Carbon.
deleted by creator
Hmm, that is actually an interesting point. If it is negative, does it bring down the sum in this? If so, how much of the world is my net worth greater than? A billion? Two?
Yes, that is a much better way to make the same point :)
Not lives on, but net worth (total wealth).
Not really, that’s the point. Soil has a max capacity of carbon it will hold. Just like biomass. So even if the fossil fuels release tiny amount of CO2, they release it continually vs deforestation releasing it one time. The only thing that changes is how long it takes for biomass to break even. But after thousands of years, the one time big release will always turn out better than continual small releases.