Mangosniper

Probably. I still find a lot of people here on Lemmy (and the other fuck you spez platform before) that are very very convinced we need to reroute a substantial amount of our effort into building nuclear reactors as renewables can never ever sustain everything and in general there is no storage.

But you are right in general.

In comparison with the other issues we have, the bird Windturbine one is a non-issue. However, it gets thrown in the ring over and over again, achieving exactly what the people persuing it want: distraction. It's the same with nuclear, it's the same with “ but we can't store the energy“. A lot of decoys to slow down the process while we already have everything we need to take on the problem. Please people, don't take the bait, focus on implementing the solution.

Uhm.. 2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.

Yeah... bird smashers... say, do you have a cat?

Hey, no need to apologize for anything 🙃 yeah, that phrase is a quote ire st least kind of a meme.

Also don't forget about survivorship bias. We don't know how many percent of their buildings are still standing. Probably only the really really good build ones. Also never forget, any idiot can build a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to built one that barely stands. And that is often what we are doing today. Making our stuff "good enough" as otherwise it wouldn't be economic feasible in the short or midterm. I am still curious how good it would be if we would instead aim for the long-term though..

Exactly this. There was some good coverage in the German podcast Logbuch Netzpolitik. Ashton is also involved in companies selling software to "solve" the CSAM issue with methods the scientific community says will not solve it and most likely will make everything worse, not only in the topic but also others like privacy overall.

Uh... from an economic point you just can't split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can't sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.

This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.

Jup, Fairphone. Enough phone for anything you need to do. Repairable and fair. Best thing