I never said that it wasn’t uncommon, I said that most Americans don’t worry about it because the odds of it happening to any specific individual is very low.

I know I’m going to get downvoted for this, but millions of americans go to school, church, concerts, etc, and have no worries whatsoever about getting shot because the statistical probability of that happening is so low that the average American is extremely more likely to die from preventable diseases caused by poor diets or even choking on food than to die in a mass shooting. Yet despite this being the case, people tend to heavily focus conversation on mass shootings rather than poor diets because of the inherent shock value mass shootings have in the public conscious than someone they personally know that dies from heart attack, stroke, cancer, diabetes, etc.

Why isn’t there a larger focus on things that make a population sick rather than tools that allow a population to defend themselves? 🤔

Wouldn’t UBI improve working conditions because companies that had bad working conditions would find themselves unable to attract workers and thus go bankrupt because they couldn’t make money because they didn’t have any workers? I can’t tell if your comment is for or against basic income.

But there was a silver lining: Small communities that purchased treated water from larger utilities—especially privately owned ones—had fewer violations. (EPA declined to comment on the new study.)

Capitalism providing a better service? hmmmmmm…

I realize I’m partially to blame, and regret it.

Then open source the code behind twitter, remove barriers to decentralization, encourage self hosting of twitter instances by making it easy for even normies to achieve. Twitter has the funds and ability to achieve this. Put up or shut the fuck up, Jack.

At least Twitter provides a .onion address. I wish Lemmy did also.

I’ve heard of batteries that pump air into large underwater bags and then use that air to spin a turbine as the water pressure squeezes the air out of the bags.

I’ve heard of gravity batteries that lift and lower large cylindrical weights in boreholes to act as energy storage.

There are also flywheels that spin at 10,000+ rpm. There are liquid molten batteries that store energy in liquid metal to be extracted later.

If you’ve thought of a way to store energy, chances are someone else has already thought of it.

I used to work with batteries and I can back up every point you made as being legitimate.

Maybe a marine deep cycle battery that’s used both for cranking the engine and power storage can be applicable in that case, but again, they’re a lot less common than car batteries.

The only problem with these is how my former coworker used to describe dual purpose batteries: “Can be used for both cranking and for power, but in trying to achieve both, it ends up just sucking at both.”

Europe is always ready to save white people

You make that sound like its racist for European countries wanting to help out a European neighbor. It isn’t.

I’m surprised there aren’t very many furries on this website

The best solution regarding privacy would be to own the hi-fi files directly and then stream them to your devices using software you self host like jellyfin or something.

but if we consider day-long use as Figure 4, then it generates 13 times more CO2 than the flight.

I might have a reading comprehension issue or something, but that sounds like using video conference software to attend a virtual conference for the length of one workday would generate 13 times more co2 than just flying to the conference itself.

Fuckerberg can go zuck himself

We need some kind of resource that has a categorized list of companies that don’t advertise and vote with out wallet by purchasing goods and services directly from these companies.

Is the data suggesting that having a video call to replace a flight going from New York to Paris and back would result in more Co2 than just actually flying? Am I reading that correctly?

Reminds me of the watermarking RedStarOS does to files

I meant to say that its strange that you guys decided to fork the OpenBSD kernel instead of just using Linux-libre. I’ve quietly followed Hyperbola and HyperbolaBSD for a while now and I must say that I don’t fully understand the reasoning for hard forking the OpenBSD kernel despite reading the explanations on the website as to why. In your eyes, are the rest of the Linux distros that are endorsed by the free software foundation somewhat “tainted” now for the same reasons you announced why you’re hard forking the Openbsd kernel? Is Stallman himself wrong for using the Linux kernel?

This shows progress in a bit more detail. We’re not rewriting a majority of bsd kernel.

Also, HyperbolaBSD was announced in Dec 2019, almost a year and 2 months ago, and most of what seems to be done has been reusing existing code from LibertyBSD. Progress on HyperbolaBSD seems so very very slow to the point of me questioning if it would be best to focus efforts on just contributing to existing software projects like the software on the fsf high priority list

Not trying to attack the legitimacy of the project, just writing down some thoughts that I had.

Interesting project and I wish them the best of luck but they’re a little crazy for trying to rewrite a lot of the openbsd kernel. I’m happy open source licenses exist to allow for greater advances of human creativity, even if I think it might be a little strange lmao

Just install an beginner distro in a VM or portable SSD like Mint or something lmao.

Fuck man that’s dirty. Sounds exactly like what they would do.