Yeah, the tankies writing for the filthy communist rag that is … The Guardian?

a drug that was originally manufactured and distributed by the American Sackler family through their American Purdue Pharma company.

Purdue doesn’t make fentanyl, they make oxycontin. People rarely overdose on prescription oxycontin as the dosage is consistent and most addicts understand their tolerance. Fentanyl is a different story, it’s so strong and the margin of error is so small that people overdose on it way easier.

You seem to have a similar myopic view of the crisis but instead of evil Mexican immigrants and drug cartels being the sole problem it’s the evil sackler family. Both those only look at the supply side of the problem, which in my opinion is unsolvable. Trying to control the supply of a highly desirable product is a losing battle, especially with fentanyl where you can hide enough of it to kill an elephant in your sock. In order to solve this problem we need to look at the demand side, both getting current addicts off fentanyl and on to safer substances and also addressing the pain that this society is causing that makes people turn to drugs.

Yeah but this is a “needle in a haystack” problem that chatgpt and AI in general are actually very useful for, ie. Solutions that are hard to find but easy to verify. Issues like this are hard to find as it requires combing through your code , config files and documentation to find the problem, but once you find the solution it either works or it doesn’t.

Fuck it I’ll take the down votes, he’s right. Ukraine is losing this war and stand no chance of winning back there lost territory, barring western countries putting troops on the ground. The longer the war goes on, the more territory the Russians gain and the more Ukraine’s manpower gets drained. The only people who stand to benefit from the war continuing is the Russians and western defense contractors.

Obviously fuck Russia for starting this needless war but you have to understand when to cut your losses and stop pouring money and lives into a losing quagmire.

It’s genuinely great that China offers that to the people they don’t imprison for asking for their rights and speaking out against the state.

I mean that’s the vast majority of the people, looks like they have a little under 10,000 political prisoners in a country of 1.4 billion, so 0.0007% of people. That’s not good and should be 0 but it’s not some orwellian police state with stazi on every corner checking if you said xi looks like Winnie the Pooh.

I’m no fan of Chinese authoritarianism and there human rights record but pretending there authoritarianism is the same as the totalitarianism of the 20th century is naive. It’s Definitely not an “open air prison” and does a disservice to people who live in actual open air prisons like Gaza or North Korea.

Most of the ‘electricity’ emissions on that nice pie graph isn’t joe bob’s playstation, it’s industrial power.

Again please cite some sources and look at the actual data. Adding in electricity and looking at end use does up industrial but only up to 30% . It ups commercial and residential far more to 31%, your right though most of the electricity isn’t going towards joes PlayStation it’s going towards heating and cooling joes house.

Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings also increase substantially when emissions from electricity end-use are included, due to the relatively large share of electricity use mostly building related (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; lighting; and appliances) in these sectors

Again personal consumption choices have an effect on this, even barring the choice of where to live the amount of energy needed to heat and cool a home goes up as the size of the building increases. Heating and cooling a large detached single family home is way less efficient then heating and cooling a small apartment. Like a big truck no one’s forcing you to get a big house and the choice you make has climate impacts.

I agree auto companies are largely responsible for the mess we’re in with transportation, but the solution isn’t to just put our hands up and say we need to hold them accountable, that won’t happen in the current environment. We all need to make the personal choice to drive less, and take more public transit. If public transit numbers go up then politicians will actually start prioritizing it and improvements will be made which will cause more people to take transit causing a positive feedback loop. If traffic numbers go down as well the government won’t have to spend money on adding another lane to the freeway and would save on road maintenance due to cars wearing them down less, allowing more money to be available for transit and adding to the feedback loop.

To kickstart that feedback loop though we’ll need people to choose to take a more inconvenient transport option at the beginning, and you aren’t going to get people to make that choice by saying there actions don’t matter and that it’s all the corporations fault so you driving a mile to CVS is fine.

did you not get sent some fucked up videos

Oh yeah, all that shit, I wasn’t talking about porn and fetish stuff though cause my comment was getting long, was just talking about actual atrocities like war, famine genocide etc. I don’t think preteens have an interest in that stuff. They definitely do have an interest in porn / gross stuff but I’m not convinced that stuff is necessarily detrimental or traumatic. I’m open to being convinced but most of the arguments seem to be pearl clutching about them losing their innocence and anecdotally I know most of my friends watched porn / gross videos at that age and turned out fine and don’t mention it as some traumatic or life changing experience unless they tie it up with some religious guilt.

Could you please give some sources instead of pulling numbers out of thin air. Because the numbers don’t seem to align with what your saying since industry only accounts for 23 % of emissions, so unless holding companies responsible includes completely eliminating them and there emissions you aren’t going to get a 20-30 % reduction in emissions. That 20-30% your talking about can actually be obtained if Americans just stopped driving and flying. Hell we can get almost double that “measly 1.5%” by Americans just driving 10% less then they are. Cars and air travel are emitting just as much as those evil corporations everyone likes to blame, and to stop climate change we’ll need to rein in both. Thats just cars, it doesn’t account for other consumer choices like eating meat and fast fashion that also have huge impacts.

The video seems to mostly be nostalgia and her lamenting over the death of the consumerist mall based culture she grew up in and trying to naturalize it or imply it’s the right way to grow up, ie. Kids these days. Half the video seems to be about how companies aren’t marketing to preteens which I’m fine with and is pretty normal in even recent historical terms. The 90s-10s marketing specifically to preteens on cable is more an anomaly then anything natural. If you were 11 in the 70s no one was marketing to you and when you went to the department store there was a kids section and an adults section for you to look through, I’m sure people who grew up then had fond memories of first exploring the adult section just as much as the author does of going to Claire’s.

I did find it funny when she said the advertisements didn’t effect her. Those ads and media were selling you a vision of what a happy preteen lifestyle is and you bought it so much you made a whole video years later on how that vision is correct.

As for the atrocities I don’t think kids are watching that. As someone who grew up with full Internet access in my preteen years I could’ve looked up isis beheading videos or famines in Africa, but I didn’t because 11 year olds don’t care about that stuff. Even pre internet if a kid had access to cable they could watch CNN and see all the horrors of the world but they don’t because it’s boring.

None of this is to say that I think social media is fine for preteens, but the reasons I think it’s bad like decreased physical activity, unrealistic beauty standards, social isolation aren’t shown in this video, I’m sure she has others addressing it but the death of the preteen market doesn’t seem like the best reason to ban it for preteens.

They’ll also be exposed to other external views that are a bit more unsavory. For every kid that watches a video by an LGBT creator and learns being gay is okay, there’s another kid who watches some alpha douche Andrew Tate type that teach them women are objects. The internet is the definition of a mixed bag and should not be used to educate children

Which is why we shouldn’t be relying on social media for this stuff anyway, this should be done by schools. If a child is in an oppressive abusive house they probably won’t get social media anyway, but they will more likely have to go to school. Also teachers and counselors are professionals who know how to educate children and handle abusive situations way better then some stranger online.

Your missing the big one that most people don’t want to hear, eat less / no meat. That’s about the biggest decision your average person can make that will make the most impact, going vegetarian is about equivalent to not driving but most Americans need to drive, they don’t need to eat meat.

Corporations aren’t forcing you to buy a bigger house, a bigger car, to eat meat or to fly across the country regularly, those are personal consumption choices that are driving climate change. You can blame the corporations for pushing you to consume with advertising or not doing there best to minimize the impact of that consumption but fundamentally there’s no way to make a carbon neutral meat burger that the average person could consume regularly. It’s not just corporations that benefit from ignoring climate costs, the average consumer does as well

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

If it’s libertarian it’s libertarian socialist. There’s no property or capital on here, posts get boosted by collective voting, not based off your following or account. There’s not even an idea of karma, your account means basically nothing here. A capitalist libertarian social media would be something like nostr or what bluesky is claiming it’ll eventually do where you completely own your account and your following and you can use that social capital as you wish.

It’s an easy target but also a near worthless one. What does the CCP gain from getting a bunch of terminally online Linux nerds on their side? No one making real decisions that could effect China is on here.

4chan is also a soft target but you don’t see parties or governments investing in propagandizing there because it’s full of basement dwelling incels who can’t do anything besides maybe shoot up a school.

Lemmy sorting is still interest based if your not scrolling through /all , it’s just that those are declared interests, you subscribe to the tennis community, as opposed to inferred interests, the algorithm figured out you like tennis based on your watching habits. It’s still curated it’s just self curated instead of algorithmically curated.

So I guess you could say it stops at how the interests are compiled and whether the interest was given explicitly by the user but then you get into how a user understands certain actions like likes. Do people like something to just give feedback to the poster, then it shouldn’t be used at all. Do they like something because they want to boost it and have their wider community to see it, then the algorithm can take that into account when giving it to friends / followers. Do they like something because they want to see more of it, then the algorithm can use that information for recommending things that user will see. My guess is people use it as some combination of all 3, and as long as the social media tells its users at the beginning that the heart button is all 3 they could get away with saying there algorithm is explicit while not changing much.

It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.

Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.

No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

• This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

• This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

• It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

• It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

• It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.

It is a different level of scale, mastodon has about 1 million users spread over a bunch of instances. Threads has over 200 million users on one instance. also due to the network nature of social media the amount of connections and messages sent through those connections can scale exponentially with the amount of users.