Actually, probably yes, they would still need to gather and compile the data, which is doubtful it would have happened during the shutdown (AFAIK the delayed CPI data for September was already collected before the shutdown, whereas October CPI data will simply not be released, the last jobs report was also cancelled).

Eliminate, as in make liminal. He’s gonna make the poors mad liminal, brah , and he’s got the shrooms to prove it

That’s already killing people, he’s looking to the future with his robot army

Is that an actual thing? Nvm not gonna Google. I WANT TO BELIEVE!

I think you’re right, but I’d say it goes wider. Things like Steam sales and Game Pass subscriptions also has favored a bunch of shovelware indie titles and AAAA games: either a game is cheap enough to make the cut/be catalog fodder or it has to be monstrous in scope

It’s no smaller thing to build infinite nuclear power than it is to build railways and walkable cities etcetera, quite the opposite.

Just fuck right off with that internet chud language.

You’re right, it was not an interesting opinion at all. But it seemed more rude and confrontative to lead with calling it a deranged fantasy cosplaying as realism.

Happy to hear I was able to offend either way 👍

It’s interesting that you envision this radical change and still think people should be driving cars. EVs are a solution to keep the auto industry going in the face of scrutiny, not a reasonable response to climate change.

But, bro, it’s the future. Gonna save the world, man!

(*) I don’t feel any agency at all over this supposed ”we” and no shared values or connectedness, it really is an amorphous ”they” disguising itself as a we by hinting at an imaginary possibility of collective agency, whether through consumerism or ”democracy”.

As despicable as the petro giants are, the extremely high energy capacity of fossils fuels and their use as raw materials means that replacing entirely them with renewables is unviable for neutrality.

This is factually correct. Given the assumption that ”we”* want to remain a global economy that makes a ton of Labubu dolls and burn though advanced computer chips like it’s toilet paper for crytpo and AI stonks, where people lead so hollow lives that they ”simply must” fly to [Insert Warm Global South Country] once a year for some sun, and where single-use plastics are considered a legitimate alternative to doing the dishes –or any other perverse absurdity of modern abundance – we have to figure out massive carbon capture and burn more fossil fuels.

I get that fossil fuels are used for a ton of non-frivolous things too, like farming. And that, even for strictly necessary things, it’s difficult or impossible to quickly replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. But the insistence, in terms of energy expenditure, on not even picking the low hanging fruits – what fucking societal gain do private super yachts offer? – tells you everything you need to know about the industrialized world’s commitment to mitigating climate change. Not happening.

Had to look that one up. incredible!

No, 98%

10 minutes is about 2 percent of an eight hour workday.

Well neither is “free” energy, but as opposed to solar and existing technologies, cold fusion is claimed to offer energy so abundant that it’s basically free. Solar don’t work on the scale required to solve the problems that climate change bring (carbon capture, water desalination, replacing every critical earth system we’re breaking) AND maintaining the rising power requirements of modernity.

Solar and wind technologies would have been an excellent basis for building a different type of society, where we also vastly reduce our energy consumtion and rethink modern economy. That would be nice, but those discussions are simply off the table at the moment. People want cheeseburgers, Amazon Prime and pickup trucks. No such things in Solar Punk Utopia.

Yes, but let’s not forget that 1,5 degrees C was considered really bad to begin with.

The target of staying under 1,5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average temperature within the century was set less than 10 years ago. It was considered ambitious but possible back then, and so many world leaders and governments agreeing to it in the Paris climate accord of 2015, was considered a major political achievement.

However, there have been uncountable political setbacks since. Aside from Donald Trump’s two election wins and subsequent horror shows, we’ve gone through a pandemic that brought insane financial, monetary politics and crushing inflation, the Ukraine war and the advent of power hungry AI (that totally will be good for something and ain’t no god dammed bubble, seriously stop calling it a bubble, bro, it’s the future). All of which has reduced climate change to a niche topic that don’t hold any sway over political elections in the rich countries responsible for the brunt of greenhouse gas emissions (directly or indirectly).

Less than 10 years ago we thought it would be possible to stay below that target over the coming 85 years. Less than 10 years later that target is declared dead by the secretary general of the UN… Was it realistic then? Well, a lot of planning and climate policy has involved exceeding 1,5 degrees and then using massive deployments of imaginary future technologies to bring the climate back. Not exactly prudent reasoning.

Some countries are still sticking to their plans, kinda. Norway are making headways installing carbon capture technology on their off-shore oil rigs (!!!) so that they can keep drilling for fossil fuels with a smaller impact on their own reported national emissions.

I agree, inefficient magic use in the scientific community is to blame for this predicament.

Yeah, sure, about equal likelihood, to be fair

It’s no use going for collective blame and doomerism

Honestly, I think we could have done with a lot more doomerism. thisisfine.jpg-ism is the biggest reason why a political solution is impossible.

No, our best hope is that our best scientists learn magic and then rapidly enable wide scale adoption of fusion reactors that are efficient enough to generate free energy that we can use for a bunch of, yet to be invented, sci-fi technologies that deal with the huge pile of shitty challenges that are amassing at our doorstep.

The odds of short to mid term survival of civilization is statistically insignificant.

Funnily enough, the less someone wants to do it the more of that “incentive” is purely stick and no carrot. Almost as if there’s something fishy about that whole notion 🤔

Unless… people actually prefer to be garbage men over the grueling work of an investment banker?