What makes you think the cafe still has bins inside? The OP here is claiming the bins were removed from the cafe/picnic area.

How do you know that? You’re not OP.

Read the fucking post for fucks sake. It’s right fucking there.

The sign says the bins were removed. The post headline says the bins were removed from the cafe area. This is a cafe at a visitor center at a forest.

Before you go insulting the reading comprehension of others, try working on your own.

I think that’s the problem. I interpret it as the cafe removed their bins.

The problem isn’t that a park removed their trash cans. The problem is that a cafe removed their trash cans.

If you operate a business that sells things in paper plates and wrappers, you certainly have a moral responsibility to have waste receptacles to collect those waste products.

The problem isn’t that a park lacks trash cans. The problem is that a cafe removed their trash bins.

The people arguing that simply are not arguing in good faith.

I suggest this page from November 21, 1922.

Full text here.

Anyone still on X at this point is a Nazi collaborator.

You ended up actually selling your soul to a devil IRL in exchange for dark warlock powers?

Can I say Luigi

https://lemmy.world/c/luigimangione

What’s the easiest way to remove fingerprints from a corpse?

A deliberately deceptive business practice that does nothing to help consumers and only raises prices? If you have to have it explained to you why that is bad, well I’m sorry, but you are beyond saving.

I was hoping someone would quote this. Bravo!

You know what? Fuck it. Let’s finally build Edward Teller’s Doomsday Machine.

Teller, the ‘father of the hydrogen bomb,’ wanted to build something even more mad, Project Sundial, a true Doomsday Device. It relies on the principle that there really is no upper limit to how big a thermonuclear weapon can get. As long as you’re willing to keep chaining stages, you can make them arbitrarily large. However, you do eventually hit a limit where the bomb is too big to deliver to a target.

However, for Project Sundial, this wasn’t a problem. The idea is you would build a single nuclear device so comically powerful that it doesn’t matter where on Earth you set it off. You build the thing in bunker, under a mountain, in the heart of your most closely guarded territory. It can be the size of a large building if need be; it doesn’t have to be movable. In extreme form, imagine a nuclear bomb the size of a stadium.

Once you push the button on this thing, it’s over. No matter where on Earth you set it off, the explosion would be so large that it would launch enough dust and debris into the atmosphere to block substantial sunlight and cool the planet. Instant nuclear winter from a single device that cannot be intercepted or shot down. And you can built it in a bunker buried so deep that no regular nuclear weapon can reach it.

It is the apotheosis of mutually assured destruction. If you threaten our existence, we retain the power to destroy everything. The entire species would be reset to c. 1500 or earlier at the press of a single button.

They did actually design the thing, though it was never built. And the details are still classified as all hell. But it is entirely possible to actually, in the real world, build a Doomsday Machine worthy of any comic book mad scientist. It is possible to build a single device that can destroy the entire world at the press of a button.

Or hell, for all we know, it’s possible someone has already built one…

There isn’t some vast array of technologies that exists but that we’re holding back from employing. We’re employing everything. Are there inefficiencies and manipulations from a capitalist system? Yes. But that has been the case for generations. Food yields per acre were increasing quite regularly for decades prior to 15 years ago or so. This is a relatively new phenomenon. And even in the greediest of corporate systems there’s pressure to develop as efficient a supply chain as possible, and to make use of available land as profitably as possible. Ruthless profit seeking could decrease the total number of acres under production, but it shouldn’t restrain the productivity per acre. Land doesn’t come cheap.

Look, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but don’t kill the messenger. The media does a piss-poor job of really nailing home to people the short and medium term impacts of climate change.

Did you know that in the last 15 years, global farm yields per acre have been flat? This is despite miraculous improvements in farming technology. Genetic engineering, farm automation, finance markets extending industrial agriculture to underdeveloped countries, satellite planning, innumerable tools and techniques.

Our global average farm yield per hectare should be soaring. Instead, it’s been flat. We’re swimming against the current, above a giant waterfall. All our advancements in farming technology are going into keeping us one step ahead of mass famine.

It’s been projected by insurance industry studies that if we hit +3C above preindustrial levels, that would correspond to a halving of the global human population. And with how fast climate change is accelerating beyond our previous overly conservative models, that could easily happen by 2050.

Again, the media has done an absolute shit job of explaining the perils of climate change to people. You think grocery prices are bad now? You haven’t seen ANYTHING. This is NOTHING compared to what is coming. The real danger of climate change isn’t slow sea rise or even wildfires. The real danger is the fact that at any given time, the planet only has a few weeks of food reserves stored up. We need to continuously make enough food to feed 8 billion humans. And if climate change causes multiple simultaneous bread basket failures? If we don’t make enough food for 8 billion humans? Well, quite quickly we will not have 8 billion humans anymore.

If you really want to understand the magnitude of the climate catastrophe, I suggest conceptualizing it in terms of wars. All of the fervent efforts in government and the private sector are trying to address climate change? All of them are trying to constrain the casaulties over the next few decades, to merely WW2-level casualties. We’re already going to face that; that’s already locked in. We’ve already guaranteed a loss of life on the scale of the Second World War. We’re trying to keep the casualties from spiraling up to “global thermonuclear war” levels of destruction.

Because the climate is becoming hotter, wetter, and highly unpredictable.

And we grow our food outside.

Why not use regular library software? Surely there’s a FOSS solution there.

Peak human population will occur within the next ten years. Previously this was driven by falling birth rates. Now it will be driven by rapidly rising death rates. Within the next ten years, I think 300 million - 1 billion dead from starvation due to bread basket collapse is a conservative estimate.

Evangelicals will decide that, despite being nominally Protestant, they’re suddenly OK with sainthood again.