Stupid question: What’s the point behind this? Is this actually financially viable for a company in the long run? Was this an attempt to get Reddit to crack down on those subs?

Isn’t this always a fight against windmills? i.e., you can’t fight a symptom without addressing the market as a whole?

1. Why do you care this much about online comments in such a niche community where only already opinionated people are?

2. Yeah, if I were a moderator and needed to go over 1000 comments in today’s climate, I would delete more than necessary just because you never know. They do not put as much thought into it as you think. It was most likely just like this:

A mod goes over comments that got reported, reads the first line of the comment, sees it has direct insulting language (the “fuck them” line), and deletes it.

No political intent or conspiracy, just a mod being a mod. Could be that there is some bias, but then you can do nothing anyway in that case; it’s just a small echo chamber then.

Hakuna Matata, my friend.

What issue? That unpaid interns or those one step below are not agreeing with long-term political decisions that were practically made before they were born and only understand the surface of the subject?

Yeah, thanks. I think I’ll just ignore those as well if I were in a position of power, and you would too.

What is this “moral responsibility,” and why is it just now relevant? There were, are, and will be much bigger and worse issues, like climate change, but no one is talking about moral responsibility and blasting the ones who are in charge like it is happening right now with the Israel/Palestine crisis.

Maybe it is just the age of massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns from all sides (some are engaging much more than others) with which I have a problem. Because, in the end, I applaud people who stand up for what they think is right, like those interns. It just comes across as too selective to be a principle. I mean, the Israel/Palestine issue has been ongoing for what? 50 years? It’s not even the first hot phase or siege of Gaza. And then you start working in politics and then you became aware of the politics and stopped working there? What?

Part of it was faulty pricing from a Norwegian electricity exporter. Also, they have almost finished the new infrastructure, so they do not have to import as much in crisis situations. I think a new nuclear power plant goes online and lots of renewable stuff. The problem OP is maybe talking about seems to be very well handled by the state and already solved. https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/24708-electricity-prices-in-finland-return-to-normal-levels-in-2023-down-64-from-previous-year.html

Please, you are so right - but please do not engage further with this kind of posts in the future, just report them - the OP of this post is 1 day old, most likely a bot account - Lemmy needs better moderation, and that fast, it’s getting worse and worse, day by day.

Thank you for the information sir!

Holy yes, that’s a whole lot to unpack here. I understand the situation a bit better now. What a shitty choice for an election xd

On the plus side, I understand the Argentinean memes now that pop up then and there—their game is on point. (South American/Latin American meme culture, in general, is on top of things and much more represented among all age groups.) Kudos to them, still keeping humor alive despite the situation.

oh yeah for sure could be a reaction to the opium wars

• https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/hong-kong-and-the-opium-wars/ -

It’s never the drugs that make a society erode; it’s a symptom. If you have a big drug problem in a country, most likely it’s related to much bigger issues at the core. Like in the Opium Wars, it was the British Empire that basically drugged China as a means to get what they want. It’s not like they discovered drugs and then just stopped doing anything else; we humans had drugs and used drugs since we know about them.

Some argue this tactic is still very much in use today, hence the fentanyl crisis, which seems to be fueled by China. It’s a destabilizing tactic. That’s also part of why China and other Asian countries are so strict because they know firsthand the effectiveness of literally drugging your foe to gain an advantage. This does not mean China and co do not have their own drug market; they have a pretty vivid drug scene.

Also, as an example, Japan or China, yeah, sure, you can’t buy weed; they will basically curb-stop you legally. But you can drink as much alcohol as you want, smoke as much tobacco as you want, and drink as many caffeine drinks as you want. These are all recreational drugs with a much higher impact on society than weed, yet they are totally legal and accepted by everyone or are even traditional.

RIP Argentina. I don’t know the situation that led to this, but man, that sounds real, real bad for the average Argentine people.

I know of one person in my wider circle who reacts also pretty bad when children are being children around him. In his childhood, every time he was loud, wanted attention, or just did what a child does, his parents (they did not even want children; he was an “accident”) got really angry at him. So children being children is a trigger for him.

Talking to a trained professional helped him immensely to handle this.

I get your point and understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re right from a certain perspective.

But I want to add that it doesn’t matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it’s just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won’t spiral is crucial for stability.

Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.

I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.

Interesting perspective, but these attacks were different from what they did before. I can see the argument that the Israeli government downplayed their preparedness to make Hamas’s attack more devastating than if they had taken it seriously from the beginning. This tactic could then be used to partially legitimize retaliation and the subsequent siege of Gaza.

There are too many factors at play for this to be a “normal” Hamas attack gone wrong. The scale and preplanned targets suggest it was not an “ordinary” Hamas operation.

While I usually agree that the simplest solution is often the right one, do you really believe this was more or less a “normal” attack that spiraled out of control?

Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.

Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?

Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there’s no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.

I agree; China’s best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn’t particularly interested in helping causes that don’t further their goals. More “chaos” in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.

You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.

Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you’ll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.

That’s why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won’t significantly change the priority list.

The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what’s happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the “9/11 card,” and the USA would allow and support it.

Just to be clear, I neither support any form of “genocide” nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.

If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable, considering China isn’t known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China’s agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn’t make it morally superior.

Example here: Uyghur genocide.

No, not exactly. Initially, it’s merely a hypothesis. The article somewhat sensationalizes the professor’s statements. The evolution of mammals was influenced by many factors, including the presence of other species like reptiles or dinosaurs. These species already occupied certain niches, compelling mammals to adapt in various ways, including developing shorter lifespans—a trait beneficial for evolution. It’s not just the dinosaurs that are responsible, but rather the entire set of circumstances leading to human existence. The professor is attempting to pinpoint specific factors contributing to this evolutionary path.

Yes, it is not feasible; it costs more to extract it from the air than the benefit obtained from burning it, and then it still needs to be stored for at least a few hundred years in solid or gas form. Otherwise, it goes right back into the atmosphere and the effect will be null. We looked at a similar concept at my university, and the professor said, I quote, “Whoever comes up with these bullshit solutions does not really understand how climate change or physics works; it is not a solution to our problem.” We also had a project like this in my city where they captured it just to sell it to a greenhouse, which releases it back into the atmosphere, so the concentration stays the same and, de facto, they have removed zero carbon from the air because it basically goes right back into the atmosphere. Actual solutions exist, but they are expensive and extensive; people will start implementing them in, let’s say, 70-120 years from now, right around when we start feeling the full effects of rapid human-induced climate change.

Yeah, sure. Have you ever heard of ‘reactions to actions’? What do you think would happen if Russia were to start targeting foreign satellites? How confident are you that they actually possess the technology to disable around 2000 out of the 4000 Starlink satellites to clear paths above Russia/Ukraine? Or, what do you think Russia is capable of in this regard? and did you really belive musk does this for free and with no ulterior idea? 😂😂😂, but there’s no such thing as free. Here’s just one example: Link to CNBC article on Pentagon awarding SpaceX a Ukraine contract for Starlink satellite internet https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/pentagon-awards-spacex-with-ukraine-contract-for-starlink-satellite-internet.html

I’m pretty sure the point of these protests is not to make an immediate impact on statistic you pull out. They know better than that. It’s about the big picture. It’s about raising awareness of environmental problems and keeping them at the forefront of people’s minds. It’s about reminding people what’s at stake. The details of how much emissions they saved that day are irrelevant; it’s about taking action.

deleted by creator