The first time I heard an aviation ceo spruiking this BS on NPR it was so clear that it was a complete lie. There was no serious attempt by a scientist to quantity emission reductions, just a lot of feel good marketing nonsense.
SAFs are just a cynical ploy by an industry that remains a climate disaster.
TBH, I just don't think something better is possible - I suspect that there are no valid shortcuts to trust.
Unless something is just obviously bullshit, it will always take some time to develop a sense of how the different sources are treating a new story. Even a trusted source can prove unreliable on a particular topic.
It's uncomfortable living with that uncertainty until you've seen a story from enough angles that you can judge for yourself. But either the story is important enough to me to spend that time, or I just accept that I can't really know.
It's perfectly normal for humans to become less matte as they age. Please stop this unnecessary reflectivity shaming.
Just block it and move on already. Your disagreement is hardly worth this crusade.
That's not sufficient.
A private trust assessing company shouldn't be given free space in an open public forum as though it's assessments we're something the general public should be aware of. If you trust it you can go seek it's assessment off site. But this company shouldn't be allowed to spam the fediverse of all places.
I downvoted then blocked it because:
I don't trust its specific analysis of sites. Others detail some examples.
I don't think whole-site analysis is very useful in combatting misinformation. The reliability and fullness of facts presented by any single site varies a lot depending on the topic or type of story.
Other than identifying blatant disinformation sites I don't see what useful information it provides. But even that's rare here and rarely needs a bot to spot.
Why is an open-source, de-centralized platform giving free space to a private company?
Giving permission for a private trust-assesing company to be operating in an open public forum makes it look as if these assessments reflect a neutral reality that most or all readers would agree on or want to be aware of. It's a service that people can seek out of they decide they trust it.
Presenting this company's assessment on each or most articles gives them undue authority that is especially inappropriate on the fediverse.
Anyone else getting webpage not available?
More like hurricane Charlie.
You're being downvoted because you're objectively wrong, factually and morally. The kid went out with the intention to kill someone, brought the tools to do it, and did it. It was absolutely premeditated. He killed people trying to disarm him. He did not act in self defense, he murdered 2 people in cold blood.
He was allowed to get away with it because the republican party and their allies want to encourage more vigilantes to be killing leftists and minorities.
Looks like it.
$2 billion retroactive tax break each to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon ... bill would provide at least $3 in corporate tax breaks for every $1 in tax cuts for working families with children. That is not a good deal.
Ok, yeah, fuck giving $4b to some of the world's richest murderers and fuck disguising a pointless payout to the rich as helping the poor.
By ensuring the rich get more, this bill would have increased inequality.
Anyone know why Sanders voted no on this?
Defederating from threads seems like the best way to make it nice. That way there's less influence from psychopathic billionaires who happily stoke genocide for clicks.