Youtube ads don't just pay creators though, they also pay for video hosting, discovery, and streaming, which aren't cheap. A lemmy for video streaming would be great, but there's a reason it hasn't really happened yet, you'd need a much larger portion of viewers to pay than what it takes lemmy to run, and you'd need a bigger community of developers to build it, which is why most youtube alternatives are strictly paid products. None of that is criticism of the idea, I think it would be great if we could wrench away some of youtube's monopoly, but at the same time we need to understand why it's a challenging concept

In the legal sense, "personhood" just means an entity can appear in court and defend themselves, not that it's made of people. It doesn't even give the corporation any human rights, it mostly just means that you can sue them

I don't know why anyone would be mad about than

See, you're assuming that this would have taken time and money to develop. Usb3 is ubiquitous at this point, it probably doesn't even cost any more to include, or if it does, it's a trivial amount. This isn't apple "not adding a feature" this is apple purposely removing features to push people to the more expensive versions

The base iPhone 15 is still a "premium" phone, it costs 2x as much as Google's A series phones, and google never had a problem putting USB 3 on those. Maybe most people won't do this, but it's obviously important enough that they didn't do the same on the pro version. It's so weird to see people defending a company purposely gimping their phones just to give them upsells.

Ok, but how did the perimeter go from 4 to 24??

r/unexpectedfactorial

Not yet, but lemmy should have user controls to block instances soon

What does the bible have to do with laws banning Muslim clothing?

Ok, so she's not a great source for truth, that still doesn't make nuclear bad though. Why is it always framed as "nuclear vs renewables" instead of "nuclear and renewables vs fossil fuels"?

we have better batteries before the decade it will take to build a single nuclear plant.

That is quite the gamble though. You're so sure that we'll be able to develop a new technology and deploy it on a global scale within the next 20 years, that we shouldn't even bother with the one clean solution that we know works? Not only that, you're assuming a technology we don't have yet will be better for the environment, despite all of our current battery tech being awful for the environment.

That's not like putting up a tent, that's like saying we shouldn't plant a tree because someone is probably going to invent an instant tree service, so we should just wait. Like, maybe someone does invent instant trees, but if it doesn't happen in 20 years we're gonna feel really dumb

Solar not working during the night is going to keep being a relevant point until we have the capability to manage it, your sarcasm doesn't do anything to refute that point. There are plenty of cool ways that scientists and engineers are working on solving those problems with better energy storage, but it's all still in the experimental stages, and until I see build out timelines for energy storage on national scales, all of the variable output power solutions will be nonstarters for fossil fuel replacement. You say that we can't wait 20 years for nuclear reactors, but we also can't wait 20 years to figure out how to build a big battery. We don't even know what the carbon emissions or time costs of whatever we decide on will be, but we do know that working nuclear reactors are a thing today.

I'm not against solar or wind, I have solar panels on my house right now, but it has only reduced my reliance on the fossil fuel grid, it's nowhere close to replacing it

Plus many are even scheduled to be closed.

Then don't! I kind of see your point about not building new reactors, even if I disagree, but what purpose could closing existing plants possibly have? How is that going to save carbon and reduce fossil fuels??

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. We can't let what we should have done stop us from doing what should be done.

And for other sources, wind and solar are great sources of energy that should be a supplement, but sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, and we don't currently have the battery technology to store energy on the scale to handle those fluctuations. We need a stable backup, and nuclear is by far the best clean and stable energy source.

What problems do you think nuclear has that outweighs the problems with fossil fuels?

Another commenter mentioned how similar some of the arguments are with far right anti-lgbt arguments are, and I don't think there's a better example of it than your comment. "I don't want to ban it, I just hate it and don't want to see it, so let's ban it from anywhere I could run into it". " 'You say freedom to love you you want' I say 'You're putting it in my fucking face and letting LGBT activists decide laws that directly affect my family and I'. Get that gay shit out of my face. Sick of it". Don't you see how that type of rhetoric can be problematic?

I'm sorry, but you're going to run into people in the world that do and say things you don't agree with, that's part of life. If you want to fight to keep it out of government and laws, I'll be fighting right there with you, but once you extend it to people you're just silencing and oppressing. Freedom is even more important when you don't agree with the choices people are making, if you can't agree with that then I don't want to be anywhere near the "free" world you help build

Separation of church and state is always a good thing, I'm not arguing against that, but this feels like a whole different level. If anything, this is the state taking an active role in changing the rules of the church. That's not separation, that's state sponsored atheism

And that's bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?

Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn't support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?

This. The whole point of freedom is that every person gets to choose for themselves, and the government should be preserving that choice and limiting elements that take choice away. It's morally reprehensible to support choice only when it's choices that you agree with, that's how state religions became a thing in the first place.

And for reference, X AE A-XII is meant to be pronounced "ex ash archangel". Which I'm sure is obvious to everyone that reads it lol

Innocent until proven guilty still matters though, even when it seems like the justice system moves at a snail's pace. His actions are coming down on him, and I think he'll be behind bars before the election, but until then there's no legal basis to block him from anything

Some places don't have an "off the beaten path". We live in a world where population density varies massively, and in the US most of the east Coast has very little uninhabited area, and more people share what little area there is.

I'm mostly with you, I love getting as far from civilization as possible and dry camping, just know that not everyone has easy access to the things you and I like to do