The job of CEO seems the far easier to replace with AI. A fairly basic algorithm with weighted goals and parameters (chosen by the board) + LLM + character avatar would probably perform better than most CEOs. Leave out the LLM if you want it to spout nonsense like this Amazon Cloud CEO.

Trump is incredibly dangerous. For that reason I would rather fight him with methods that work,

Because non-violence has been so effective at stopping fascism historically?

I’m not saying it was a smart thing for the shooter to do, or that I’m celebrating this event or what it could’ve been, I’m just saying that it’s perfectly normal and understandable for an oppressed peoples to not have sympathy for the misfortune of their oppressor.

Plus, the whole advocating for political violence is NOT a sign of a healthy society

Yes, we are not a healthy society

Y’all are on the precipice of finding out firsthand the difference between “OMG I’m so oppressed

Sounds like the perspective of a privileged person who’s life hasn’t been in danger for years because of this person. Why is it bad to celebrate the misfortune of a person who has caused massive harm and is promising to eradicate your kind?

Dave!?

Save a slap for the leap seconds creator.

Or, we could collectively realize time is but an illusion and transcend this silly problem.

You gotta throw fling your feces at them.

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site.

Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.

I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.

But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?

This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”

Sometimes I use the term “psychopathic hoarder class” when referring to this group of people.

I’m still on IPv3, haven’t updated yet.

I think the key would be to not use any additional resources to grow, harvest, etc.

This could be done for example by landscaping companies that put their waste through a retort (which could be anything from a stove made of mud bricks, to a mobile trailer that does on-site pyrolysis and use the resulting biochar to fertilize their customer’s plants. Farms could put their waste through it, innoculate the biochar with animal waste, and use it as fertilizer.

I make biochar from my backyard waste in my firepit using a can like this guy.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9boXHuzMFsA
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChVxPpnPT-I

Any other method of carbon capture I’ve ever heard about makes no sense. Having hundreds of engineers and workers drive to work for years to engineer and build giant metal and plastic factory/machines with parking lots that require staff that has to drive and park there, etc is nonsense. And even if they work, what would they do with the carbon? Biochar provides a cycle that is accessible to everyone, can be done on-site, uses no fancy technology, nothing is patented, and doesn’t require all this nonsense.

Biochar (created in a retort) is how you sustainably sequester carbon for the long-term using trees (and similar biomass).

Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.

To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.

I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.

If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.

I think constantly bringing it up to people all the time is more of a disservice.

The trans community is tiny, I’m an almost 50 year old trans woman transitioned over 20 years ago. The reason we have the rights we do is because it’s “brought up all the time”. When I transitioned, it was rarely brought up, this was because most people were scared of the social and economic consequences of doing so. This is all changing because we talk about it rather than be quiet and let people keep us down. I’d imagine even you might have more negative views of trans people if the only exposure you had was from talk shows promoting us as freaks, this is how it was before.

Other than that, your attitude is fine, not everyone needs to be interested.

Scandalous! Where can I hear more about this ABC, DEF, JKL love triangle?

Nope, been thinking about what it would take to make one though.