I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it’s good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that’s 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don’t think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an ‘opposing view’ that deserves any debate)
I mean, I think they’re definitely still in the minority. It seems like there’s a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that’s just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
It’s worst on lemmy.world I’ve noticed. Beehaw was right to defederate. Y’all need to tell them in the kindest possible words to go die over and over again until they don’t come back or you’ll end up like voat.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don’t believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
You very well may be correct, but I always like to assume people are good and are arguing in good faith until proven otherwise.
If I can “steelman” (opposite of strawman) their position, and argue against it easilly, I see no reason not to do so, and that also makes for a better argument for other people viewing the comment thread who may believe the false notion that climate change is either fake or not caused by humans.
To me, trying to argue that climate change is fake or not caused by humans is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat. Very easy to debunk.
If they actually believe it, I would like to argue the factual point, which is very easy to do. If they don’t believe what they are saying, then yes, I have a problem with it.
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. If they choose to not listen to evidence and hard facts, then they lost the debate. If they say that big money funded those studies, simply point them to the Big Oil-funded studies claiming that climate change is false, and the fact that they originally found that it was true, and then tried to bury it.
while I do completely agree with Apple depressing lack of any innovation recently, until modern foldable phones become commonplace, there is only so much you can do with a brick of glass.
before the display - “until you can figure out how to make a faster printer, there’s only so much you can do to get your calculation results from the ENIAC system.”
before the keyboard - “until you figure out a way to create punch-cards faster, there’s only so much you can do to enter data into a computer.”
before the mouse - “until you figure out a way to make people tap the arrow keys faster, there’s only so much you can do to navigate a screen array of interactive elements.”
before GUI operating systems - “until people get faster at typing in “DIR /P” on their keyboards and read the list of possible applications quicker than other folks, there’s only so much you can do to navigate and access a computer’s installed software.”
before the iPhone - “Until you figure out a way to make a better keyboard there’s only so much you can do with these Blackberry devices where half of the device is a screen and the other half is a full-size QWERTY keyboard.”
There is room for innovation.
Just because you cannot imagine it, does not mean we have reached some sort of “pinnacle” of design for these stupid little glass screens.
Apple has not innovated since Jobs died. Not because Jobs was some sort of genius engineer or even a great innovator, but because as Apple’s head, Jobs was an asshole tyrant that terrified those below him into doing crazy things he suggested on a whim… and sometimes that meant they came up with dumb shit like the 20th Anniversary Mac and the Newton… and other times it meant they came up with a couple of new good ideas like the iPod, and the iPhone.
That’s kind of a dumb way to make the point. Innovation isn’t necessarily apparent in a photo with no context or information. A bronze sword and a steel sword still both look like swords, but there a huge technological difference between them.
Yeah photos don’t encompass the entirety of evolving technology… but come on… it’s not like Apple has put the iPhone through a literal evolution of metallurgy or material science like the hundreds of years time difference from going between the bronze to steel age.
Your implied point was that there wasn’t any innovation, but there was, by your own admission above.
Don’t shift the goalposts by latching onto an analogy I made. The fact is that the technology has progressed quite quickly over the timespan represented in those pictures, and that fact underscores what’s wrong with the post you were responding to - it wasn’t a handful of rich folk that did it, it was the work of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. You had a much better point to make than the one you did.
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company.
So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies.
And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation.
I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,…
Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all?
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running.
Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others.
Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That’s not relatively little. That’s insane.
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
And stocks doesn’t automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
I take offence in being called a troll. It’s insulting. You can’t just call someone a troll with a different opinion and claim that this invalidates my argument.
This is simply wrong.
Basic research comes from universities and institutes.
But most research, Including research with application potential, comes from the privat sector.
This includes the Pharma industry, the medical industry, the chemical industry, semi conductor industry and informatics.
It is mainly driven by big companies. In constant need to outperform their competition, or not to fall behind in research and innovation.
This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It’s confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don’t even know where to start.
Saudi Arabia has ‘proven’ whatever it has proven through insane levels of draconian state intervention in everything, a lot of oil rents, and using imported slave labour.
I don’t think you have been reading a single one of the articles.
The first one already is a not so fitting response to m claim that European style houses are ore resilient against extreme weather events.
The first one is about how wet bulb temperatures and extreme heat work. The second one is about Europe.
Whether or not they are ‘more’ resilient doesn’t matter.
Also I don’t think you know what Europe is. Scandinavian, Central European and British houses are mostly made to keep heat in during cold winters. They’re not good for heatwaves.
Mediterranean style housing is definitely better for heat. But that doesn’t stop Italy, Spain, and France from having deadly heatwaves.
The first one is about how wet bulb temperatures and extreme heat work. The second one is about Europe.
Whether or not they are ‘more’ resilient doesn’t matter.
Yes it does matter. European housing is well insulated. And definitely sturdier than US housing.
Also I don’t think you know what Europe is.
Yea, my bad. As a German I obviously have no idea what Europe is.
Scandinavian, Central European and British houses are mostly made to keep heat in during cold winters. They’re not good for heatwaves.
This is wrong. Insulation goes both ways. In summer it helps keeping the cooler night temperatures inside.
Mediterranean style housing is definitely better for heat. But that doesn’t stop Italy, Spain, and France from having deadly heatwaves.
Mediterranean housing is not especially good against heat. Wrong assumption.
Swedes, Germans and the French are doing a much better job than the mediterranes.
Won’t dispute that European housing is sturdier. And yes insulation works both ways - however, you need good ventilation. And shading etc. AFAIK insulation optimised for heat retention is different to that optimised for keeping cool.
If you have a study or something that compares Mediterranean vs other European house designs, please send it to me and I’ll change my mind if I’m wrong.
As a German you should know that heatwaves have killed thousands of people in Germany as well.
Swedes, Germans, and French are also wealthier and have less extreme heat to deal with than Italy, Spain or Greece. You can’t attribute that to house design. Again, if you have a study comparing these, send it to me and prove me wrong.
My comparison on housing insulation is purely based on my experience. Italien housing is not much insulated. Insulation is usually driven by the need to reduce cost when heating in winter.
That’s a problem Italiens face not so much. Therefor in comparison to
Northern Europe, Italien housing is far less insulated.
And because insulation goes both ways, I came to the conclusion that Northern European housing is better suited for warm summers.
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
“Infinite need” implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn’t exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development.
Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate.
So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
Imagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao
Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?
My theory is they just had a habit of getting banned so they weren’t as visable
I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
They have the right to be here and express their thoughts.
What they don’t have is a right to our attention.
Ignore them and block accounts that get annoying.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it’s good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that’s 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don’t think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an ‘opposing view’ that deserves any debate)
Idk. I’m on kbin and haven’t experienced that. Usually when I wish violent death on conservatives I get a ton of upvotes.
I mean, I think they’re definitely still in the minority. It seems like there’s a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that’s just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
It’s worst on lemmy.world I’ve noticed. Beehaw was right to defederate. Y’all need to tell them in the kindest possible words to go die over and over again until they don’t come back or you’ll end up like voat.
For every person that choose to leave reddit…
There’s 5-10 “conservatives” who were ip banned and dont have a choice between Reddit and Lemmy.
They are not getting down-voted into nothingness for refusing to tow the party line.
I appreciate the variety of opinions presented here. Plus (in my experience) the conversation has been civil.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don’t believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
Assuming any conservative is arguing in good faith is your first mistake.
You very well may be correct, but I always like to assume people are good and are arguing in good faith until proven otherwise.
If I can “steelman” (opposite of strawman) their position, and argue against it easilly, I see no reason not to do so, and that also makes for a better argument for other people viewing the comment thread who may believe the false notion that climate change is either fake or not caused by humans.
To me, trying to argue that climate change is fake or not caused by humans is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat. Very easy to debunk.
That is a recipe for wasting a huge amount of time in people whose main goal is to waste your time.
You mean like the disinformation that this user is literally spreading in this very thread?
If they actually believe it, I would like to argue the factual point, which is very easy to do. If they don’t believe what they are saying, then yes, I have a problem with it.
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. If they choose to not listen to evidence and hard facts, then they lost the debate. If they say that big money funded those studies, simply point them to the Big Oil-funded studies claiming that climate change is false, and the fact that they originally found that it was true, and then tried to bury it.
People posting the same few thoroughly debunked ideas over and over gets really old.
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
You think Tim Apple is coming up with their innovations? Lol
Yeah dude, just look at all the innovations Apple has made to their phones for like the last 10 years…
They got bigger… and the screens are brighter… and there are like 4 more cameras.
So much innovation. :|
while I do completely agree with Apple depressing lack of any innovation recently, until modern foldable phones become commonplace, there is only so much you can do with a brick of glass.
before the display - “until you can figure out how to make a faster printer, there’s only so much you can do to get your calculation results from the ENIAC system.”
before the keyboard - “until you figure out a way to create punch-cards faster, there’s only so much you can do to enter data into a computer.”
before the mouse - “until you figure out a way to make people tap the arrow keys faster, there’s only so much you can do to navigate a screen array of interactive elements.”
before GUI operating systems - “until people get faster at typing in “DIR /P” on their keyboards and read the list of possible applications quicker than other folks, there’s only so much you can do to navigate and access a computer’s installed software.”
before the iPhone - “Until you figure out a way to make a better keyboard there’s only so much you can do with these Blackberry devices where half of the device is a screen and the other half is a full-size QWERTY keyboard.”
There is room for innovation.
Just because you cannot imagine it, does not mean we have reached some sort of “pinnacle” of design for these stupid little glass screens.
Apple has not innovated since Jobs died. Not because Jobs was some sort of genius engineer or even a great innovator, but because as Apple’s head, Jobs was an asshole tyrant that terrified those below him into doing crazy things he suggested on a whim… and sometimes that meant they came up with dumb shit like the 20th Anniversary Mac and the Newton… and other times it meant they came up with a couple of new good ideas like the iPod, and the iPhone.
That’s kind of a dumb way to make the point. Innovation isn’t necessarily apparent in a photo with no context or information. A bronze sword and a steel sword still both look like swords, but there a huge technological difference between them.
Yeah photos don’t encompass the entirety of evolving technology… but come on… it’s not like Apple has put the iPhone through a literal evolution of metallurgy or material science like the hundreds of years time difference from going between the bronze to steel age.
Your implied point was that there wasn’t any innovation, but there was, by your own admission above.
Don’t shift the goalposts by latching onto an analogy I made. The fact is that the technology has progressed quite quickly over the timespan represented in those pictures, and that fact underscores what’s wrong with the post you were responding to - it wasn’t a handful of rich folk that did it, it was the work of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. You had a much better point to make than the one you did.
deleted by creator
Okay but we all know iPhones and we all know that’s about it.
Hey, they came up with some interesting colours no one has used in 80 years.
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company. So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
That’s a good point. You must have a really smart boss to come up with ideas like that.
So you feel entitled and experienced enough to lead a company?
He’s very good with financials and supply chains, I’ll give him that.
And since the profits can be invested into research, it is somewhat linked.
No it doesn’t. Worker-owned co-ops exist. Didn’t you say you’re in Germany? You should know all about that.
I don’t know what you think of us Germans. But we are rational capitalists. And I do believe to know a lot about it.
No, you misunderstand. I’m all for the idea. You just seem to be unaware that it exists. Learn about your own country:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/07/in-germany-workers-help-run-their-companies-and-its-going-great/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
https://www.ibisworld.com/germany/industry/cooperatives/937/
Here’s a non-German example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies. And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
Oh brother
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
… A simple “wrong” would’ve just been fine…
Edit:
for those who missed the reference
Nah I like this better
… It’s the response that Billy Madison gives to that quote…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running. Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others. Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Ribbit
I have no motive other than my own profit. And I do not profit from a conversation here, other than to quench my thirst for discussion.
So please refrain from accusing me of propaganda.
btw they do store a lot of their money in vaults where it doesnt benefit the economy at all.
This is in the form of expensive art that stays in containers in tax-free zones, and offshore accounts in tax havens.
Please educate yourself.
https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/how-wealthy-sell-treasures-tax-free
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2017/09/7-charts-show-how-rich-hide-their-cash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315
But most of it is still invested in stocks. So those few links have relatively little impact.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That’s not relatively little. That’s insane.
And stocks doesn’t automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future. Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Wealth hoarding is a massive problem irl
No it’s not. It has already been studied, that with an inflation rate of roughly 2 percent, that people are more willing to spend.
And currently we exceed this by far. And people do spend their money in an attempt to get the most out of it.
So wealth hoarding is currently no problem. And in a well managed economical state, it as well becomes no problem.
You mean the innovation that’s destroying the planet? Ok bro.
Removed by mod
Holy shit please tell me this person is just trolling us. I refuse to believe this is a real take
Anytime someone points to the Saudis as an example to follow…probably don’t need to listen to anything else they say.
I am no troll. I believe that I see the world as it is. I guess so do you.
Doesn’t matter much though. No matter what we do. We will see who is right. Luckily time passes all by itself. For now.
Yup, troll!
Move along people, nothing to see here.
In fact, I’m not sure this user even exists…
I take offence in being called a troll. It’s insulting. You can’t just call someone a troll with a different opinion and claim that this invalidates my argument.
But we’ve already seen who’s right. Most innovation comes from public universities and institutes.
This is simply wrong. Basic research comes from universities and institutes.
But most research, Including research with application potential, comes from the privat sector. This includes the Pharma industry, the medical industry, the chemical industry, semi conductor industry and informatics.
It is mainly driven by big companies. In constant need to outperform their competition, or not to fall behind in research and innovation.
Quickly testing if I go banned because some of my comments were deleted.
Edit: nope. Not banned.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ This is a community of well mannered people and good conversations.
This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It’s confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don’t even know where to start.
Maybe if you don’t know where to start means that you don’t know where I am actually wrong?
Let me grab a shovel for you so you can dig yourself deeper.
Dig myself deeper? I don’t understand. What are you referring to.
Come on Lemmy, how can you fall for this basic level of trolling
European style houses won’t save anyone from extreme heat
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3151/too-hot-to-handle-how-climate-change-may-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/
Europe has had plenty of fatal heatwaves in the past.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/case-studies/heatwave#:~:text=More than 20%2C000 people died,Europe sweltering in August 2003.
Saudi Arabia has ‘proven’ whatever it has proven through insane levels of draconian state intervention in everything, a lot of oil rents, and using imported slave labour.
https://mideast.shisu.edu.cn/_upload/article/2f/5e/aaff7a9b4644a4b5234d6a4e6f0c/1f06bdf4-bf8b-4874-9567-d5412e350c32.pdf
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/saudiarabia0708/5.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_workers_in_Saudi_Arabia?wprov=sfla1
Hardly a model for anyone to follow.
I don’t think you have been reading a single one of the articles. The first one already is a not so fitting response to m claim that European style houses are ore resilient against extreme weather events.
The first one is about how wet bulb temperatures and extreme heat work. The second one is about Europe. Whether or not they are ‘more’ resilient doesn’t matter.
Also I don’t think you know what Europe is. Scandinavian, Central European and British houses are mostly made to keep heat in during cold winters. They’re not good for heatwaves.
Mediterranean style housing is definitely better for heat. But that doesn’t stop Italy, Spain, and France from having deadly heatwaves.
Yes it does matter. European housing is well insulated. And definitely sturdier than US housing.
Yea, my bad. As a German I obviously have no idea what Europe is.
This is wrong. Insulation goes both ways. In summer it helps keeping the cooler night temperatures inside.
Mediterranean housing is not especially good against heat. Wrong assumption. Swedes, Germans and the French are doing a much better job than the mediterranes.
Won’t dispute that European housing is sturdier. And yes insulation works both ways - however, you need good ventilation. And shading etc. AFAIK insulation optimised for heat retention is different to that optimised for keeping cool.
If you have a study or something that compares Mediterranean vs other European house designs, please send it to me and I’ll change my mind if I’m wrong.
As a German you should know that heatwaves have killed thousands of people in Germany as well.
Swedes, Germans, and French are also wealthier and have less extreme heat to deal with than Italy, Spain or Greece. You can’t attribute that to house design. Again, if you have a study comparing these, send it to me and prove me wrong.
My comparison on housing insulation is purely based on my experience. Italien housing is not much insulated. Insulation is usually driven by the need to reduce cost when heating in winter. That’s a problem Italiens face not so much. Therefor in comparison to Northern Europe, Italien housing is far less insulated. And because insulation goes both ways, I came to the conclusion that Northern European housing is better suited for warm summers.
European style house, 2021, Germany: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ork8a_qrw8s
A similar flood happened in 1804 in the same region. Exactly the same region.
The houses were placed in a strategically bad position.
And many had no cellars ( to reinforce the houses in the ground).
The worst kind of bootlicking.
Oh no, I was called a bootlicker and my ego will now collapse…
Are you sure it’s not the demand driving the demand? The rich are the supply-side of “supply and demand”.
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
“Infinite need” implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn’t exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
Nestle is stealing water from the people who need it. Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/27/california-nestle-water-san-bernardino-forest-drought https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/nestle-water-california.html
It’s not their water to begin with.
Also in some places (Flint, MI comes to mind), tap water in undrinkable due to neglect, since fixing it costs more money than ignoring the health of the population. Source: https://apnews.com/article/health-michigan-rick-snyder-flint-detroit-a4578736862f47b980ae61ca72129811
Like the
explosion motorcombustion engine?What’s an explosion motor? Motor ain’t supposed to explode.
… Do you really not know how combustion engines work?
They use combustion.
Shhh shhh. You gotta use crayons for the big words.
English is not my primary language. I believe it was explosion motor what you have written at first.
And while I am no expert of the workings of a modern combustion engine, I do indeed have an understanding of how a combustion engine works.
I also know what reaction takes place and I know the average fuel consumption of an average European car.
If it’s not an explosion, what is it?
Because literally any other answer that’s not a synonym for explosion is wrong…
It’s a controlled combustion. Not an explosion. Explosion is uncontrolled expansion of gases (also includes expansion without chemical reaction)
That’s wrong, and it wasn’t even entertaining…
Ribbit
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development. Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate. So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.