Just use your media corporations

Exactly. It’s easier for smaller NGOs to do political lobbying since they don’t have any media corporations available.

If you take that away, you’re basically left with big actors and social media.

corporations with big pockets have more possibilities to influence than regular people, or even NGOs

I guess nowadays it’s cheaper to target social media and let the voters + traditional media do the lobbying.

your own fault. get a nuclear reactor next time d’uh…

it’s not profit driven, tho.

Same went down with Chechnya. But since 1.9% russian population was not enough to justify intervention there, some “terrorist attacks” helped.

nah. in my experience, even cheaper LED bulbs from discounters can nicely replace old bulbs.

It’s true that what “el-cheapo product” once was done by simply reducing lifetime is currently done with looks.

You could also get ultra cheap crappy incendescant bulbs in the past.

yeah, i was referring to current tech. First LED or those mercury vapor bulbs were basically useless.

So you are saying

“The belief that climate change is unstoppable”

is the same thing as

“a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity”

Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright… I’m the one who’s illiterate.

tHe lIgHt is sO mUcH bEtTeR!!!)

narrator voice: “but it was not”

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”

Then he’s wrong. But it’s more likely you misread the study since that’s not the conclusion.

100.0 TiB(anana)

there will be a ‘bastards up against the wall’ moment for the ones responsible.

i can’t see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without “state of emergency”) lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.

But first the environmental conditions must allow such activities to have the impacts they have.

Exactly. There might even be the same amount of arsonists/stupid people as in the 80s but it just burns better now. Incidents were no fire developed in the 80s can now spread to huge wildfires with a much higher chance.

Still the claim is true and probably has consequences for hikers, people who live in the woods, settlements near to forrests etc.

climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences

Those are two entirely different narratives.

(And I didn’t get past the paywall.)

because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.

That’s the thing I don’t get. How to come to such a conclusion?

If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.

It’s totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.

How is it stupid? It’s true and not even contradicting OPs experience.

Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that’s roughly how it works.

edit: not sure why you’re downvoted. It’s a good question.

No need to be a german nihilist. Anyone could get a toe. There are ways… You don’t wanna know about it, believe me.

I doubt that’s a linux problem. All apps store config in /etc, ~/.*rc or ~/.config

Everything else should be considered a bug (looking at you, systemd!)