If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.
If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.
Surprised not to see any posts referencing the Arbitrary List of Popular Lights or !flashlight@lemmy.world.
One of the requirements to make it on the list is:
A user interface where a single click turns the light on in a reasonable mode, and another single click turns it off.
Lemmy without politics is kinda a ghost board. There is maybe 3 or 4 new posts a day.
I think your approach of blocking any user who posts about politics is eliminating the most prolific posters when 95% of their stuff is non-political. This is not to say your approach is bad, just that it doesn’t actually represent “Lemmy without politics”.
Once you start showing formatting you will also be able to see and delete “Section Breaks” more easily, which brings in another bit of Word deep magic:
Settings for sections are at the end of the section. If you delete a section break, the previous section will start using the settings of the next section.
This is especially fun for the last section of the document. If you want it to use the settings from the previous section, you have to manually “copy” the settings by editing the good section and then Redo in the bad section.
Interlibrary loans are a wonder of the world and a glory of civilization
-Jo Walton, Among Others
who the fuck invented strong overhead lighting
Well, in the beginning…
I guess the argument is that they will raise rent by the maximum, even at excessive risk of losing tenants? Because if the tenants will pay that much, why wouldn’t the landlord charge that anyway?
Definite agree with the core of what you’re saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree “High income countries”), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).
Every presidential election is important, and it never makes sense to make a “protest vote”. That’s just not how voting works.
I’m sure somebody has cried wolf at every election, but McCain and Romney never aimed to become dictators. Republicans currently have a published plan to institute fascism. It’s pretty obvious that these elections actually are exceptional.
Oh man, don’t stop
You got it! Here’s some other consumer protections the administration has introduced recently:
Hungry for more? Check this out:
White House Statement on Junk Fees
That’s from October, so some of it overlaps, but among other stuff there’s still a “Click to Cancel” rule working its way through the FTC.
Sadly Biden has been spending a bunch of time on lame crap like climate change, human rights, health care, infrastructure, election integrity, etc., so it might take a bit longer for him to single-handedly usher in consumer utopia.
This seems entirely opposite to my observation. I’d say Biden and his administration are unusually focused on unfair or annoying business practices. In just the past two weeks the Biden administration:
The complete rules are here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/refundsfinalruleapril2024
The meat of it is the table on pages 9-14 and mostly comprehensible.
Worth noting:
Funny running across this article after reading https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
Spoiler: the author does not have a high opinion of Raghavan.
Possibly from here: https://lemmy.world/post/14481959
I don’t think it’s fair to call Slay the Spire (StS) a clone. While Card Quest introduced a lot of the key elements years earlier, StS adds enough innovation that it feels like a totally different game. Definitely would be more fair to say StS popularized a lot of the mechanics rather than invented/pioneered them though.
So to most effectively address climate change we need individuals to change their behavior. So we can just tell everyone to do that, and we are all set, right? Clearly not. We need to:
Taxing “carbon” (really all GHG emissions) creates incentives for individuals and companies to use less, making trade-offs and choosing less carbon-intensive products. It moves the threshold for switching over to cleaner and more efficient technologies. People who refuse to acknowledge climate change will still change their behavior for personal benefit. People who want to make the world better will have more options and less reliance on company marketing/greenwashing.
Read what 28 Nobel Laureates and thousands of other economists have to say: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
As mentioned on that page, the best use of this tax is to give it back to everyone equally. Those who pollute less than average come out ahead. Those who pollute more pay for it in (indirect) taxes.
This is wrong on top of wrong. First off, it’s 57 entities (including “Former Soviet Union”) producing 80% of the emissions tracked by the database – which covers “88% of total fossil fuel and cement emissions,” and totals 251G tonnes of CO2 equivalent gasses (CO2e) from 2016 through 2012 [1]. So with that we have 200Gt making up 70% of the global total over that 7 year period.
But fossil fuels and cement emissions are not the only source of greenhouse gasses. Human-caused global emissions are roughly 53GtCO2e annually during that time [2], for a total of 370Gt across all sources. So 200Gt is about 54% of that.
Most importantly though, this is a ridiculous measure in the first place. Who cares how many people are responsible for digging up the fuels that people are directly burning themselves in their homes and cars? If every oil well had its own company, how would that improve emissions? Nearly half of emissions are from individuals, and much of the rest is directly driven by consumer demand (e.g. power companies burning coal and gas).
Sources
According to Times of Israel, the jets are F-15IA (Israeli-variant F-15EX), which are quite capable of carrying over a dozen bombs equipped with the JDAMs also being provided.
I hope anytime someone asked for the manager you said, “I’ll go get the manager, Karen.”