They print profits out of thin air by earning carbon credits through ZEV program and selling them to other manufacturers. It was 30% of their profits this year and enables competitors to stave off actually making any EVs, leaving Tesla as the only game in town in the US
Aus here, for complex dental I can claim up to $800 annually on my extras cover, need braces for around $8000.
Edit: forgot to mention it’d only have been ~$2000 around 2003 when I was first told I needed them, but my parents, whom paid off our house with a year’s combined salary, couldn’t afford it. My dad argued it should come out of his existing child support payment, and I didn’t get them.
Have you considered that those aren’t the best places to get a good sense of the rational argument behind increased awareness of social inequalities? All the described platforms skew toward younger audiences and ineffective moderation - you were likely talking to literal children trying to come to terms with their inability to reconcile their morality with their environment, especially from areas that skew conservative.
When I said actual leftist content I meant, pick an example of a person identifying as woke whose view you don’t share, then vet your position by investigating the opposing argument and reflect on whether that person was offering a fair and balanced representation of that argument. If it isn’t, then you can’t attribute their slant to the school of thought they claim to represent solely based on your subjective experience reading comments on social media.
Bollocks. I don’t believe you have seen too many people identifying as woke. People that hold the beliefs you’re talking about don’t generally identify as woke. You’re talking about attitudes attributed to wokedom entirely by conservatives trying to rile up their base. They’re using moral panic via the culture war to politically destabilise in an environment where they have no policy to bring to the table that anyone wants, and you’ve fallen for it. Go consume some actual leftist content and try to critique it the way you are now in good faith. You won’t be able to.
What does woke actually mean to you in this context? Are you just referring to the way convervatives have appropriated it? Because that’s exactly what woke is
They’re still regulated under Title 1, just not as much. Theres much less of an obligation to set a fair price, for example. More so pointing out we can’t necessarily rely on net neutrality as something that generally protects anyone from anything anymore. It only prevents business from doing specific things that are seen as bad business, the consumer isn’t really in mind
Net neutrality effectively ending under Trump might clear it up
Seems as safe as mostly any public torrent site to me. Use ublock and it should be fine, provided you aren’t downloading and running a random .exe labelled as Avatar 3 or something
I think a compromise on copyright could be a good middle ground in future. In the same way that I’m happy to wait for a game to go on sale before I buy and play it, I’d be happy to wait until a movie or series enters the public domain so I can consume it without paying. Obviously not for hundreds of years, or 56 years. But if Netflix/HBO etc shows and movies became free to watch after 6-7 years, most piracy traffic could be easily captured by legal platforms that are more convenient and accessible to more viewers. I struggle to see how it would not further relegate piracy to a niche activity done by very few, or be bad for the content producers in any significant way
It was the wrong question and I just guided you on how it was wrong. For it to be the correct question you should have qualified what you meant by using that phrase. I’m sorry you didn’t understand that.
The post headline is “each Bitcoin transaction uses 4,200 gallons of water”. This generalisation is based on one Bitcoin mining operation which upon cursory inspection is actually a LNG electric company. I’m speculating but likely the reason they mine Bitcoin is to make it worth keeping the gas fire on during off-peak.
If you’re going to use a single operation to generalise about the whole network, why use this small weird outlier and not the bigger companies like Riot, Bitfarms, Genesis? I could turn around and say “each bitcoin transaction is fully renewable” based on the operations of any of those companies, and the claim would be even more substantiated than that headline is by that report. But it would still be wrong. Neither example is representative of the energy required by Bitcoin.
Now, I’m not coming to the party trying to push Bitcoin as a transactional currency, like you seemed to have a notion of it trying to compete as. I don’t think it’s much good for that. But I’m not about to go believing some made up shit about how a computer solving some cryptographic puzzles has a comparable environmental impact to filling an entire swimming pool. Gimme a break dude.
It’s because texting has been very cheap there for a long time. It’s now very cheap where I am too, but in high school everyone was using stuff like MSN Messenger where possible. At that time teens in the US were texting. It became cheap where I am by the time WhatsApp came out, so we have a mix of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and texting
You’d need to qualify what you mean by ‘exchanging any value of money’. If it’s handing a note of currency to your friend, the energy cost of circulating the bill is associated. If you mean someone not in the same room, then you need to accept the associated caveats of running the traditional finance system e.g. ATM costs, financed emissions, and other essential components of the fractional reserve bank concept. Totally aside from the server requirements to physically run the network. Without all of those things, you can’t exchange any value of money.
Traditional finance almost certainly consumes as much water as Bitcoin on a per-capita basis, and on an absolute basis traditional finance uses way, way more. The difference is the global network of banking operations is opaque. For Greenidge Generation, their 2.5EH/s hashrate is a part of their product, advertising it is a sales tactic. Just makes it a bit less abstract to pick apart and then make broad generalisations about the sum hashrate of the network based on this LNG-powered site the report is based on. For what it’s worth, that’s not really a feasible way to mine Bitcoin. It suggests energy generation is their real product.
The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it’s clear. The monetary policy essentially dictates it over time. Reward yield decreases for the same amount of work. You don’t need to get into whether it’s environmentally sustainable, because it’s not economically sustainable unless you’re generating a fully renewable energy source.
Yeah we’re deprioritising the platform you use, because it’s niche. We have analytics, and they say your use case doesn’t matter. Just accept it and keep paying us, like all those other times
To draw a comparison between bitcoin energy consumption and water use is plainly seeking to remove context from the conditional justification for Bitcoin’s energy use, which has nothing to do with water. It’s deliberately sensationalistic. Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water. As a statement on whether that consumption is justified, it’s meaningless.
If one site accounts for 50% of all web traffic, we’re faced with an inescapable decision to accept or reject that this site is the primary purpose of the internet now. If you have any arguments for why we should decide to limit it, please put them forward! On this end, it seems like the basis for anything other than the neutral position (i.e. to prioritise preserving the neutral relationship between the user and the internet access) is arbitrary.
Whether the energy consumption of an action is justified depends on the efficiency of the energy use, the practical aim of the action, whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions, and the energy source.
Simply stating it has no purpose and that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow analogous to mass water wastage, does not seek to investigate whether Bitcoin’s energy use is justified. It’s disingenuous and reactionary.
Fact: The original proponent of chiropractic claimed he learned it from a ghost
From Wikipedia: “There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.”
Here’s the link to the episodes on bilibili, my VPN doesn’t have any China endpoint so they’re blocked: https://www.bilibili.com/bangumi/play/ep748347
Had a look in my usual areas and found listings but no sources. Listings were only added recently though (11/30/23) so maybe international distribution is being organised.
How is it blocked? Could you work around it with a debrid service? i.e no torrent protocol
After seeing this post, I tried streaming the newest episode of Silo and found it wasn’t working in my addon (which uses a4kscrapers).
My mother tried streaming Slow Horses (using same addon) after I told her and she said it worked fine. I guess it had already been cached and was therefore unaffected since the file I streamed was only released today.
Anyway I luckily only had 8 days left of RD, so I subscribed to Premiumize and it only took a minute to reconfigure the addon to use that instead.