• @return2ozmaOP
      link
      -191 month ago

      I didn’t want to break the NSFW rules… in case it did.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        721 month ago

        Unless it’s actually a pair of them then no, and if some mod says otherwise then I don’t want to use their children’s internet

      • Zagorath
        link
        fedilink
        401 month ago

        Honestly censoring it like this just calls more attention to it. Had it not been censored I’d have just read the word and moved on. Had it been censored but using the same colour as the background I’d have read it, spent some time thinking “I hate this trend of censoring benign uses of language to bypass big social media companies’ filters, but I guess it’s necessary” (because I’d have assumed you grabbed this from a Twitter or Facebook post).

        But censoring with a big red squiggle, the first thing I read was tits. All the downsides of the subtle censoring, but then it also gets seen over and over again because it visually stands out so much.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        141 month ago

        Not a mod here, but I don’t see how written tits could be a problem. Hell, artsy tits should probably be fine too. Sexual tits are, I’m pretty sure, the actual line.

  • @SlopppyEngineer
    link
    1041 month ago

    Same with water usage. Everybody has to reduce water, not wash cars while industry and agriculture who use like ¾ of the water don’t do anything

      • @InternetCitizen2
        link
        861 month ago

        Sure but growing water intensive crops in the desert is also not logical.

        • @stonehopper
          link
          151 month ago

          Wait a sec, how do they consume water for cooling, i thought it’s in a closed loop as its purpose is only transferring heat

          • @thunderfist
            link
            121 month ago

            Some facilities is do this. They’re not 100% efficient, so some is lost to evaporation, some must be dumped because it has too much mineral content (and too much conductivity) to go back through the cooling system. Reusing is only about 50% efficient (according to Google’s numbers).

          • @scutiger
            link
            101 month ago

            On a standard PC, you can easily have a loop because the radiator is big enough to exhause all that heat. But when your computer or cluster puts out multiple thousands of watts of heat, eventually you need to get rid of tge hot water and replace it with cold water. And when it gets even hotter, you need a steady stream of cold water that immediately gets dumped.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Half a liter per kilowatt hour. That’s the average water use

            It’s like the idea of recycling plastics with water.
            Not all of it is reusable to the same degree. A good portion of water has to be evaporated off to cool down the exterior towers plus water isn’t really infinitely usable in these loops. It gets gross or full of materials.

            Another thing that people need to remember is generating electricity uses the water here as we literally don’t use many methods that don’t involve water, we are not on a green grid and neither are these huge data centers for the most part. We boil it for the electricity then have to use additional to clean the system after.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            125 days ago

            If you live in a low humidity area you can cool with an evaporative cooler cheaper than with air con. Evaporative coolers consume quite a bit of water

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)
            link
            fedilink
            111 month ago

            Not really. Look at California agriculture. You’ve got immense and unsustainable amounts of water going to almonds, pistachios, and other cash crops (not to mention animal feed for the Saudis) with voracious demand for more water, despite it causing damage to the water sources.

            • @[email protected]
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              The big problem crop for water in California is almonds.

              The big problem crop for water in Australia is cotton.

              The big problem crop for water anywhere is not beef

      • @Maggoty
        link
        11 month ago

        The US massively overproduces food. We absolutely can afford to not water some of those crops.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -51 month ago

              You can just… not wash your car. It literally doesn’t matter. If water rationing is in effect, washing your car should be the least of your concerns.

              • @Maggoty
                link
                191 month ago

                I don’t care about washing my car. I care that they’re moderating our car washing while allowing foreign businessmen to use as much water as they want on hay that gets exported. And that could be fine if they were doing it in the Mid West. No, they’re doing it in Phoenix, Arizona. A region that knows it’s counting down to a zero day.

                So while I’m not washing my car, they shouldn’t be watering those crops.

              • @nBodyProblem
                link
                31 month ago

                Not washing cars results in long term damage to the car. If you have a 200k mile shitbox with peeling clear coat, sure, you don’t need to wash it because it probably won’t matter.

                If you have something nice with good paint, washing is an important maintenance item

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 month ago

                If you don’t wash your car and you’ll get corrosion from the salt on the road. If you live where it snows of course.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 month ago

                  This person is talking about being from the desert, so yeah, no sympathy here. The Fremen could figure out that water shouldn’t be wasted when it’s scarce.

                • @Maggoty
                  link
                  129 days ago

                  To be fair it’s not usually the places with snow putting these bans in.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 month ago

            If the cars are overused that means they require more maintenance, not less. I want walkable places but that’s not the argument to make lol

        • @Wooki
          link
          230 days ago

          lol fresh food is like all public health and wellbeing is non existent unless its been heavily industrialised to make as much money out of it as possible.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            129 days ago

            Farmers’markets exist but in many cases they’re more expensive than buying at the grocery store. At any rate we already pay Ag corps to leave land fallow so the West and Mid West doesn’t get over farmed again. Telling them to water only 95 percent of their cash crops shouldn’t be a problem.

    • Lev_Astov
      link
      171 month ago

      Last I ran the numbers, industry and agriculture used 98% of the water. This being in CA.

  • @Sorgan71
    link
    911 month ago

    you can say tits online

    • @ameancow
      link
      431 month ago

      The various platforms with their various advertiser-friendly stances have all but maimed the english language. Had someone I know talking about a death in their family and they legit said “unalive” once without realizing it.

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 month ago

          I think a lot about Nassa being censored to N***a in some game lol.

      • GratefullyGodless
        link
        English
        71 month ago

        Depends. I just asked my wife to put her tits on our radio, and she was nice enough to do so, but now she’s wondering what the hell I’m looking at on the internet, but I CAN see tits on the radio.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          330 days ago

          I appreciate the play on words. I was referencing a song, but now I can only see someone (literally) resting their tits on a radio… and it’s a pretty funny image lol

          • GratefullyGodless
            link
            English
            430 days ago

            Fortunately my wife is a good sport about these kind of things. She’s used to my odd requests after all this time.

          • Echo Dot
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            330 days ago

            I can’t see the image. My instance must be broken.

      • @Sorgan71
        link
        51 month ago

        You cant see fucking anything on the radio me thinks

    • Echo Dot
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      730 days ago

      And if you are going to censor it don’t censor one letter with a line that looks like the letter.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      130 days ago

      You can’t, many social media now has OCR that read text from image and if it discovers no no words, it’ll censor the post

      • @Sorgan71
        link
        330 days ago

        Ahh yes, you can’t ever use swear words and eurasia has always been at war with eastasia.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      261 month ago

      Free market economics are going to slurp any extra watt as long as it’s capable of making a modicum of profit, unless it is just told “no”. The private sector is going to have to pay far more for their power, or else we’ll never reach NET zero emissions.

      • Lowlee Kun
        link
        fedilink
        111 month ago

        “bUt ThInK aBoUt ThE eCoNoMy!!”

        • Everytime, anyone every mentions any of the many unfair advantages that businesses are getting.
        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Just replace “economy” with “rich peoples money” to translate.

          Perhaps people would give a shit about the economy if we could afford to own a house?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        There’s no free market. Free market would mean no copyright, no patents, no brand protection. With real free market (provided you have endless energy from Satan knows where to support that state of things) we’d have noname small to medium businesses coming and going, bigger corporations existing for very complex supply chains and\or some advantageous trade secrets.

        That would potentially cause stagnation in some long perspective, but fix the current situation.

        • Lev_Astov
          link
          41 month ago

          Are you suggesting we harvest portals to hell for unlimited free energy? Genius!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 month ago

            Well, there is a joke about Chernobyl station fulfilling the 5-year plan for energy output in 5 seconds.

            I meant that to protect that free market from various people trying to make it less free in their favor you’d need that energy. Which is why it’ll never reach that state.

            And removing those very important limitations I named is very hard, even unrealistic maybe, but that doesn’t mean that it’s adequate to pretend that a market including them is free. They change everything.

      • @ModernEraCaveman
        link
        121 days ago

        Even if it’s told “no,” it’ll take the person or entity that denied them access straight to the courts, all the while continuing to do so anyway.

    • @Aceticon
      link
      191 month ago

      The really juicy bit is the hypocrisy of asking common people to refrain from consuming.

      “Fuck you plebe” would at least have the positive of being honest.

      • @RememberTheApollo_
        link
        101 month ago

        That’s history. The ones with the means hoard anything of value while blaming the commons for their problems. Doesn’t matter if it’s the Irish Potato Famine or telling us global warming is our fault because we didn’t buy enough greenwashed shit to fix it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 month ago

          The Irish famine was more of a result of imperial policy. It’s about genocidal states, not capitalism. I mean, yes, most of Ireland was owned by landlords residing elsewhere, and “protection” of their rights was one of the reasons, but there were also things quite obviously showing the intent, like widespread destruction of church records and local history.

          • @RememberTheApollo_
            link
            51 month ago

            It can both be about profit and genocide. They can exist at the same time. IOW, genocide can be profitable.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 month ago

              There really was a motive, if you wish, to use the land freed by expelled (or dead) tenants for something else.

              I just don’t like blaming things on markets and profit motives and capitalism in general, because “tit for tat” in human interactions is not something you can just replace ideologically. It’s in our nature. The sane approach is to make it work in less catastrophic ways, like with sports and video games and martial arts and adult entertainment.

              • @RememberTheApollo_
                link
                3
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                I think profit and power, or the lack thereof, can be the root of a lot of these awful human traits. It can just be straight up greed driven by a few looking to gain power and/or money that push an agenda of [insert tried and true bogeymen here like xenophobia, religion, racism, etc.] to create motives and instabity to trigger the wars. It could be genuine problems like economic issues or severe agricultural deficiency, via real misfortune or more likely due to greed, corruption, and mismanagement by the country’s leadership. Even religion can be the rationalization, a tit-for-tat, but nonetheless the end result is to take what the enemy has. It doesn’t have to be formalized markets or capitalism.

  • @psmgx
    link
    751 month ago

    To paraphrase another Twitter post, “AI uses the same amount of power per day as Guatemala for the sole purpose of making kinda acceptable slide decks for consultants to use when telling other corporate types how many people to fire”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    651 month ago

    Perhaps if there was a lot less asphalt and concrete and more shade trees and grass, it might be a bit cooler and more comfortable?

    • @ameancow
      link
      261 month ago

      Yah that would help somewhat.

      But here’s the problem. Carbon Dioxide is like three springly balls stuck together when most other molecules in the air have two springy balls stuck together.

      The more springy balls are in the air, the more they can absorb the wiggles from sunlight, and then even when the sun isn’t shining them springs are still wiggling, releasing that wiggle into other molecules and objects slowly, at a rate much higher than if it were more nitrogen or oxygen. Our biggest problem here is one as simple as slinky-physics. We have too many springy balls wiggling in the sky, wiggling too hard and making everything wiggle more.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 month ago

        The way you were able to put it so simply makes me really wish that explanation was correct, but unfortunately it is not.

        It’s more along the lines of:

        • All things shine away their hot, as long as they are at least a little bit hot.
          • You know the sun shines, but actually the earth shines too.
          • Actually, you shine too. (That’s why you can be seen on an infrared camera.)
        • The hotter a thing is, the harder it shines.
          • The sun is really hot so it shines really hard.
          • The earth is much less hot, and shines way, way less.
        • The earth gets more hot from catching the shine from the sun, and less hot from shining itself.
          • When the hot coming in from the sunshine is the same as the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth says the same hot.
          • When the hot coming in from the sunshine is more than the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth gets more hot.
            • And as the earth gets more hot, its earthshine becomes harder, until it’s the same as the sunshine again.
        • For the earthshine to take the hot away from the earth, it has to actually get to space.
          • Otherwise it’s like the earth shines on its own air, and the hot remains basically on (or around) the earth.
        • CO2 stops some parts of the earthshine from reaching space.
          • This part of the earthshine, when it starts from the ground, basically never gets to space.
          • It can only get to space from really high up, where there is not so much CO2 in the way.
          • But really high up is also colder, so the earthshine is less (because hotter things shine harder).
          • The more CO2 there is, the higher up we have to go, the colder it is there, the weaker that part of the earthshine is.
          • And when the earthshine gets weaker, the actual earth has to be hotter to shine out as much hot as is coming in from the sunshine. Which is why CO2 makes the earth more hot.
        • @ameancow
          link
          21 month ago

          I try to explain to people in simplified ways, it’s pure pedantry at best or totally confusing at worst to the average person if the heat that CO2 is storing is coming from the sun directly, or the heat being reflected back into space, either way the mechanical idea is the same, that CO2 stores energy.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            Not really. CO2 is effectively a thermal blanket. It traps your radiant heat. The environmental heat still affects you, additively.
            The only real difference is that people also generate their own heat instead of just storing it. But you could say a thermal blanket on a snake and have the same effect.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).

            • @ameancow
              link
              0
              edit-2
              29 days ago

              CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference).

              Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

              https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

              https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064

              I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.

              The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.

              edit: I genuinely wish the scientific community could embrace being “not perfect” for like, just a week or something.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 month ago

        So, we cull the herd in large cities and thereby reduce the CO2 and cool the local area?

        The problem is the the concrete and asphalt act as a heat sink. And it holds the heat rather than letting it dissipate in a reasonable manor, thus encouraging those springy balls to play rubby rubby for longer than they should in any one particular localized area. Let alone have some of them soaked up by the pretty green scenery.

        • @ameancow
          link
          5
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          So you’re partially on the right track, concrete is one of the biggest problems we have with global warming, but it’s not the slabs of hardened concrete that are the problem, yes they get hot and reflect heat upwards so cities feel hotter, but that’s not causing the whole climate to change as much as the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacture and setting of concrete, which produces more of those springy balls than even airplane emissions annually.

          The problem is the carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) far more than anything we do with structures and surfaces on the ground. If you were to take away every road and parking lot, it would make cities feel a little better, but the globe would still be on a runaway temperature increase. Even the idea of planting vast amounts of trees is likely not nearly enough. We had our window to act, it slipped by.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        Does this mean that the global warming potential of gaseous polyethylene (plastic) is something stupidly high? Even Methane (4 springy balls radiating from 1 bigger ball) has a way higher (28:1) global warming potential than Carbon Dioxide.

        • @ameancow
          link
          2
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I haven’t read about gaseous forms of plastics in the air specifically, so it’s probably not as much of a major problem as the larger greenhouse gasses, like yes, chemicals that have many more “springy balls” like Methane that are being released as the climate warms, increasing the rate at which the globe heats. The permafrost and arctic ice has massive amounts of trapped methane that is currently being released in large explosions turning areas of the arctic circle into moonscapes of craters.

  • @FinishingDutch
    link
    621 month ago

    I’ve got solar panels and AC. I’m keeping the house at meat locker freezing while staying within the solar panel production. Might as well use the power when it’s there.

    Some people will complain about using AC in general. They can sweat all they want - I’m keeping cool.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      421 month ago

      ngl, this is my lifelong goal. Have a house and being able to install and own green technology. Too bad that’s mostly out of reach for anyone born in the 90’s.

    • Liz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 month ago

      Can’t sell your excess power to the grid?

      • @chiliedogg
        link
        161 month ago

        They’re making that increasingly difficult. Basically, as more and more people get solar it becomes economically impossible to maintain the grid with millions of people being paid to connect to it.

        The result is a higher and higher percentage of your power bill not be for “use” but for some other bullshit.

        Because of the crazy power rate spikes during one of the Texas freezes, my power bill gets like a bunch added to it as a recovery fee for like the next 15 years. Then there’s the connection fee, maintenance fee, etc. My bill is like $300-400 a month before the first milliwatt is calculated, which makes solar less-viable. I’m paying a huge power bill no matter what (illegal to disconnect from the grid entirely), so payments towards a $50,000 solar setup would just make it more expensive.

        I might save 20-40 bucks on my electric bill, but the extra $250 in payments for solar would kill that.

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          141 month ago

          Yeah that’s been an anticipated problem, since home solar is essentially a lost customer for the utility, but infrastructure maintenance costs don’t change. Honestly the power grid shouldn’t be a commercial enterprise, even if it’s under shit tons of regulation. It’s so absurdly critical to society we should have nationalized the power companies a long time ago.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            Yeah… Right now California residents are paying massively inflated rates because the utility board decided that PG&E, a company that is literally a convicted killer, can pass the cost of the fines on to customers.