I’m not trying to get you to vote for any particular party or candidate, effectively every political party is in on the scam anyways. I’m just trying to help you, I have nothing to gain here. The people in charge are exploiting you and your friends, they’re stealing from all of us, and blaming other scapegoats for it. Don’t believe any of their bullshit, and demand a better world to live in.

Your friends have been scammed by the wealthy ruling elite. They’re voting conservative because they’ve been told that will solve the problems they’re experiencing, but it won’t. It will only make them worse.

Immigration isn’t the cause of the problems that the people of France have been facing. Reducing or ending immigration would make problems worse.

The problem is that rich, wealthy elites control the country for their own benefit, hoarding all of the resources for themselves. Then they blame immigrants for causing the problem instead.

If resources in france were equally distributed, everyone would have ~300,000 euros.

You are angry at the wrong people.

Thank you very much for sharing this, it’s very illuminating. At this point I just assume that every pro-israel news story is a total lie tbh

Optometrists believe that the reason for this is that we’re tending to be inside more than we used to be, rather than going outside as much, so our eyes basically aren’t getting as much exercise in looking at stuff far away.

I was making the point that ad-supported services have been financially viable for centuries without needing to invade personal privacy, and that governments have been regulating industries for even longer - and at this point, your personal choice doesn’t really matter. You might be perfectly happy to eat food cooked in an unhygienic kitchen, for example, but enough people have been harmed in the past for food hygiene regulations to be commonplace worldwide.

Pay or have ads is fine by the EU’s DMA law too. What isn’t fine is the collection of user data without consent. Facebook can show all the ads they want, but if they collect user data to target those ads they need consent.

Think about radio or TV advertising - those aren’t targeted at specific people, but rather they’re targeted based on what channel, time of day and TV shows that they’re around. Meta can do the same stuff, but they just don’t want to give up that lucrative user data.

DOE Announces $2.7 Billion From President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda to Boost Domestic Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain

Wow, some industry lobbyists got government funding, amazing. Global fossil fuel subsidies are at $7 trillion, so I guess those are really relevant to our future as well!

I don’t want developing countries to waste their money on nuclear power when they can get much more cost effective renewables.

I don’t understand why Julian Assange gets any credit for Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, because that should clearly go towards the mainstream media.

So much ink was wasted by the press over Hillary’s nothingburger email scandal. I think it’s something like 50 headlines in the New York Times over a single month?

Not to mention James Coney’s part to play, basically he hates Hillary Clinton so just took any opportunity to sink her election chances. He holds much more blame for Trump’s election than Julian Assange.

I wonder why, out of all the journalists who could be blamed for Trump, Assange gets so much more hate? I suspect a lot of it is because there’s already so much anti Assange propaganda because he damaged the hegemonic interests of the US.

No industry has quite so much vaporware technology as nuclear power. Any idiot can promise and never deliver. Look at Elon Musk.

There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left.

TL;DR: If we switched over to nuclear, we’d burn through the world’s reserves of accessible uranium ore in less than twenty years. Hopefully the sun will last a bit longer than that.

According to 2022 Red Book, there are around 8 million tonnes of Uranium which we could extract for $260 or less, per kg. The current price for uranium is around half that, FYI, so nuclear fuel prices would have at least doubled by the point we’re extracting that last million tonne.

Nuclear power plants use around 20 tonnes of uranium per TWh, according to the world nuclear association, and world energy consumption is around 25,000 TWh per year, according to the IEA. That would be half a million tonnes of uranium consumed per year. Meaning we would burn through the world’s reserve of reasonably accessible uranium in just sixteen years.

In hot countries, thermal solar is a great opportunity - Imagine big mirrors that concentrate the sunlight on one particular spot.

But Photovoltaic is used just fine - one of the largest solar farms is near Dubai, and Saudi are planning on being a massive provider of solar power in the future - Saudi Arabia launches world’s largest solar-power plant

So, no, sorry, nuclear power isn’t relevant anymore. I know it’s tempting to cling to outdated technologies sometimes, I enjoy using a typewriter for example, but when it comes to solving climate change, I think we should use the best tools available, which nuclear is definitely not. It’s just too expensive and slow to provision.

So many public health problems would be solved if we publicly funded cafeterias to provide subsidised breakfast, lunch and dinner to any member of the public. Economies of scale on providing those meals would make them incredibly cost effective and the improved health among working class people would lead to increased tax receipts which are would (at least partially) mitigate the cost of such a policy.

The point of these kinds of efforts is to shift the blame. “It’s easy to know which foods are good and bad with this handy system, so if someone is only eating bad foods, that’s their choice, and the rest of us can blame them for their poor health.”

I read the paper you linked. Are you seriously suggesting that if we stopped animal agriculture, wild animals would flood the countryside to the same extent as in the Kenya study? I don’t think that is broached by the study at all.

The United States supports genocide and colonialism around the world relentlessly, and acts like it’s a crime against humanity when there is even the slightest pushback, even though they have never been held to account for any of their own crimes against humanity. I’m sorry if awareness of that fact caused you distress, it wasn’t my intention.

I tentatively agree with that - if we add on, “and a person who does not boycott either or both corporations isn’t doing anything wrong” then that’s basically my point. I’m highlighting hypocrisy.

ok, which of these claims do you doubt?

• going vegan reduces your impact on climate change
• not using air conditioning reduces your impact on climate change

you can’t stop a chemical spill and pull people out of a wreckage at the same time, so it’s not really a close comparison. it’s more like, if you loudly proclaim that anyone who’s not boycotting nestle is an asshole, but then you’re not also boycotting coca cola, people might point that out as a way to demonstrate that you can’t criticise others without expecting to receive criticism in return.

“these two things share this similarity, but they have no similarities with one-another” ok