Which is good because offering a job to someone then lowering the price you pay them after they’ve done it is evil regardless of it you’ve decided that you don’t like the company the person doing the task is working for

So your original claim? You’ve forgotten about that and your not going to respond to anything I’ve said but will continue to throw out emotive but meaningless statements?

You’ve purposely tried to redirect the topic to avoid the very clear fact that the conspiracy theory claim you made is based on them doing things that you think they should be doing.

You just spoke about the current conflict as worse than what was happening previously, the article you used up back up your conspiracy theory that Israel created Hamas is based on the argument they should have had a similar reaction sooner and that it should be more extreme.

You say genocide which I presume you count as starting before this current conflict and is based on the flimsy arguement they don’t let enough aid though, etc but you also want to use the flimsy arguement that they’re letting too much aid through which is propping up a terrorist organisation.

The reality that you don’t rely know or care about what you’re talking about is very clear, you’re throwing around buzzwords and meme talking points you haven’t even thought about and have no idea of how they relate to the wider situation. You’ve decided your team thinks Israel is bad and you’re on a quest to amplify that because you feel it will make you look like a passionate and intellectual person - unfortunately these hamfisted and empty arguments you’re making just make you look like a gullible blowhard.

Ok so you’re against Israel providing work permits to Palestinians?

Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.

From one of your articles, they’re literally complaining that Israel allows Palestinians to have jobs in Israel and saying that this practice of not totally starving out Palestine is proping up Hamas.

Since Netanyahu returned to power in January 2023, the number of work permits has soared to nearly 20,000.

The article is angry at him for something you almost certainly use the opposite of as a reason to call it an apartheid state or open air prison or whatever, this is something you surely think should happen right? Palestinians should be able to work in Israel, right?

They go on to talk about how he shouldn’t be letting aid money into Gaza, etc

And do you agree with this from the article?

One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday.

They argue that anything less than total military destruction of Hamas is equivalent to support, they want a boodier and more brutal war which is why they’re saying the claim in the headline - surely you don’t agree with that? Surely you don’t think that Israel shouldn’t let aid into Gaza and should attack more violently? Therefore surely you don’t agree with the claim in the title.

You’re parroting headlines without reading the article, probably because you’ve heard the claim repeated by so many people who also didn’t bother to read the article and just assumed it validated their existing view.

That’s such a nonsense question even before the reality that both sides are killing innocent children, the most over used meme on the internet is the trolly problem but you’re still trying to act like you’ve never heard of it. Yes, if inaction results in a worse outcome then action is permissible from a moral stand point.

Get a Bluetooth keyboard they’re great, little fold out one size of your phone or a tiny or one that straps to your arm… So many different types, I even saw one built into a phone case

Do you know that’s a baseless conspiracy you’re pedaling?

If that was the qualification for losing the right to the land then the Palestinians would have lost it long ago

Yes I know that’s what you want to happen but it’s not very likely, we’re not really short of anything that we don’t have a dozen other options for.

We’ll have oceanic floating factories harvesting sunlight and turning sea water into jet fuel and carbon fibre Christmas toys before consumerism gets close to admitting defeat.

If you want to change society I’m afraid you have to do the hard thing of coming up with a better idea and convincing people to try it.

The thing is that I don’t really think anyone does, it’s a buzz word construed by traditional media to let them draw hate on to modern competition without admitting they’re even worse.

Fit example Kim Kardashian is an influencer unless she’s on old media then she’s a celebrity, Hank Green is an influencer on tiktok but if was on traditional media he’s a science educator… None of these jobs are new it’s just that they’re not controlled by corporations to the same degree so the rich have invested some money in making you hate them.

I mean yeah, far more than are coming out of Marvel, Disney and Hollywood in general.

This is a fantastic idea, here in the UK we’ve just been dumping raw sewage in the rivers and poisoning the coast because it’d cut into water companies record profits to treat it (also Brexit chemical shortages or something)- if we can turn the poop into something useful that can sell then the won’t let a drop off that precious filth go to waste.

Your claimed calculation is very vague, I have to say I don’t believe for a second you actually did that and it’s laughable you’re claiming you did

When someone tells me that they’ve noticed a fundamental flaw that all the leading minds in the field have not it does not lead me to think that the field itself is flawed rather the person I’m speaking to’s understanding of it.

Of course we understand that it’s not all going to come from one source but where there are waste products like stalks and leaves left over from food production, poo, algae, and etc it makes sense to work towards using all of those so we can transition away from the extracting oil and gas.

The energy comes from excess generation in renewables for load balancing, that base load thing people mistakenly say they can’t do.

It’s clever and simple, you put a whole load of potential generation in knowing that to meet your essential and desired demand on low generation days you’ll need excess capacity which will over produce on high generation days. You then plug that in to a system which has tanks of feedstock in this case poo and empty storage capacity so that in peek generation periods it can run at maximum, when it’s only a little over the requested load it runs at limited power and if there’s a time with no excess power it turns off for a bit.

That’s why all the carbon capture and processing facilities are focusing on modular parallel design, it’s very easy then to create scalable production tied to excess load.

Of course this is only one of the many possibilities, the nuclear lovers want to build nuclear powered sequestration and processing facilities, Iceland made one using geothermal, the American one is wind and the proposed Saudi one trailer about being solar thermal.

Oh and actually the efficiency is incredibly impressive now, with some of the active catalyst chemistry they’re developing we’re getting into heat pump style efficiency gains and it’ll looking more likely we’ll be able to go below parity in cost per gallon Vs mined hydrocarbons.

I know it feels like people never explain the complex side of things but that’s because journalists are bad at their jobs, there’s whole organisations out there dedicated to this sort of planning and a lot of the stuff they talk about and work towards ia incredibly well thought out and sensible.

You’re not going to stop people living their lives, visiting friends, family, and having meaningful life experiences. If we can make flying more ecologically sustainable than rail and boats then it would be a hugely positive thing in the fight against climate change.

I’m not convinced, I need glasses and hate wearing them plus contacts are horrible but hugely popular because people think glasses are worse.

I think there are plenty of uses for HUD but they’re being greedy by trying to corner a consumer market that doesn’t exist when they should be trying to solve their way into niche markets which can popularise the tech and develop uses for it.

There’s almost nothing that I use a smart phone for which glasses would be better, I don’t need object labelling because I rarely come across an object I don’t recognise, I don’t need instant notification of messages or alerts. Maybe gen alpha will like having subway surfer playing at all times but I don’t really think so.

I think AI voice control and natural language though text input will remove even more of the need for it and taskable automation will help reduce that even more by removing jobs that need labelling assistance.

Wearing body cameras will likely become standard though whether we like it or not, which I assume most people won’t but will go along with for reasons of personal protection against slander and duplicitous editing.

By ‘that crowd’ do you mean conservative countries in South East Asia?

There’s a lot if you look for it, recent developments in tidal are incredibly positive and we’re absolutely going to see a rapid uptake in marine electrification as existing technology progresses through the market. Most people never really think about the resources used and pollution caused by small boats but one of the big destructive forces at play is the infrastructure requirements - small boats need big boats to supply their fuel stations.

Transitioning away from this system and instead using costal tidal generators to charge electric ferries and barges could be a total game changer in many areas, especially many of the highly trafficked and polluted tidal basins like in north Brazil, Nigeria, or island clusters like in the Philippines. Also the intercoastal waterways around the US and other leisure spots.

We’re making great progress in many areas and I really think it’s important to acknowledge this and cheer it on least we get so caught in a false sense of doom that we just give up.

Modern agriculture is hugely damaging to the ecosystem, provides a very low quality produce, is very inefficient, and there’s plenty of better things for the land to be used for.

I get that a lot of people want to live in an idealised version of the past but the past is someone’s future, things change and grow and evolve which is a great thing. People are going to grow daily produce locally because it’s more efficient and better than daily transporting food long distances - getting traffic off the road should be a key part of our future plans, localising production is a great idea. Growing lettuce six hours drive away is silly when it loses most it’s quality in six hours even when chilled, why run a truck every day when for less power than just the transport you could grow them locally, especially if you’re getting better produce without any damage to the environment.

Year round, pest free, high quality fresh produce locally is going to be a standard thing in every city and grumbling about how life used to be different isn’t going to change that.

That depends on yield per year and for certain crops it’s incredibly high compared to arable, especially with clever engineering that uses waste heat productively.

We’re certainly going to see an increase in city farms for various things over the coming decades, automation just makes it too easy and there are so many good options to explore