CoderKat

It adds value by helping convince clueless investors to give you money. I'm entirely serious. There's a significant number of investors that think blockchain technology is a good thing. Doesn't matter that it's a terrible solution to practically every problem. The goal isn't to be a good solution. The goal is to make money. They only need to convince a few clueless people to give them that.

I also love space RPGs. SWTOR was pretty great. It's an MMO, but it has good single player. The Knights of the Fallen Empire/Eternal Throne DLCs are basically single player games and they're really good quality. The KOTOR games are also really great, if a bit older and KOTOR2 was basically unfinished and requires mods to make it even feel 80% finished.

Outer Worlds was okay. It certainly does in some ways feel similar to Fallout in space. But not quite as good and I don't recall being aware of any serious modding scene.

But huh, I thought there'd be more, but I'm struggling to think of space RPGs with a feel like Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls. I'm really looking forward to this, too, cause despite being a buggy mess, I love Bethesda games and I also love sci fi (especially in space).

Not an RPG, but I also love Stellaris. It's a strategy game, but really scratched that hyper advanced sci fi and space exploration itch.

We shouldn't ignore rural voters entirely (which I don't think anyone is saying). I agree that they are overrepresented and that's a major problem.

We also have places like DC and PR that basically don't get any representation. And big states often don't get nearly as much representation per population as small ones. The US is extremely undemocratic with how they chose to implement things.

Yeah, it wouldn't even make sense for renting to be cheaper than buying. Most renting is from for-profit landlords. Obviously they have a mortgage, too. They're obviously going to try to make a profit. Plus mortgage is only part of the cost of owning. There's also property taxes and maintenance, which renting includes in the rent price.

The problems are mostly that there's not enough supply (most commonly due to bad zoning), homeowners oppose anything that could help (cause that would reduce the value of the home they already own), and that most of these landlords are for-profit. Being for profit means they aren't just going to charge more, but they also have a vested interest in making sure it's more expensive and less tenant friendly.

Strongly agreed. Lemmy needs to grow. I badly miss many smaller communities that are only viable with Reddit's size. Making prominent instances invite only (or requiring approvals or closing sign ups entirely -- as some other instances have done) is just going to hurt Lemmy as a whole.

Treating new accounts with a lot more scrutiny makes sense to me. We could require the first few comments to have mod approval to even show them (probably more of a per community setting since it would likely have to depend on community mods), restrict images for some period, have more aggressive content filters on young accounts, etc.

Same. I'm lucky for software to be my hobby/career. It's practically free. Contrary to popular misconception, it doesn't require any kind of special or more powerful hardware (for most dev, at least). Maybe $150 for a second monitor, for sanity, but that's not actually necessary.

...I mean, I do have good hardware too, but that's for my gaming hobby, not my software hobby.

They said emissions.

Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

As for the rest of what they said:

The entire system of food production, such as the use of farming machinery, spraying of fertilizer and transportation of products, causes 17.3bn metric tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, according to the research. This enormous release of gases that fuel the climate crisis is more than double the entire emissions of the US and represents 35% of all global emissions, researchers said.

In case you're curious about plants, they're actually only 29%:

The use of cows, pigs and other animals for food, as well as livestock feed, is responsible for 57% of all food production emissions, the research found, with 29% coming from the cultivation of plant-based foods. The rest comes from other uses of land, such as for cotton or rubber. Beef alone accounts for a quarter of emissions produced by raising and growing food.

I gotta be honest, this comes across more like excuses to not make changes or even admit your part. I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I'm under no delusions that my meal preferences aren't bad for the environment and have ethical concerns. I eat meat anyway because honestly, I just like the taste and struggle to give that up. But I fully support those who can give it up and want to see lab grown meat be a viable replacement.

Like your roommate, nobody is saying literally everyone has to stop eating meat full stop. If you have a medical need, obviously keep eating meat. Similarly, reducing how much meat you eat is still an improvement. You don't have to go 100% vegetarian.

Similarly, if indigenous folks can sustainably eat meat, cool. But most people simply aren't doing that. And are you aware of why meat is so bad for the environment? I mean this 100% seriously: cow farts. Raising livestock ethically only addresses the moral problems with animal husbandry. This thread is about environmental problems. Land intensiveness doesn't actually matter that much. The amount of land used isn't the problem.

The avocados thing isn't related to environment. Again, I gotta be honest here, this feels like an attempt at a "gotcha". I get it. I struggled with the idea that my own consumption (which again, I still do) is bad for the environment. Plus I could never kill an animal myself. I can only eat meat because I emotionally separate myself from it. It's a hard reality to face and I'm still not really comfortable with it. But we can't act like "oh, you eat a bad thing, so I'm okay to do different bad things" is a good reasoning.

Don't take things literally when someone says "we should all do X". That's not a personal attack on you if you don't. That's just how we talk. We say "everyone should watch the new Barbie movie because it's really great" but I don't actually mean literally every single human needs to watch it.

The article isn't very clear, but I think it would just remove her from her position. So it probably wouldn't ruin her career. If anything, I feel like plenty of law firms would love an experienced prosecutor who has the guts to oppose the madness that is the alt right.

Now now, it's more general than that. In between shooting black people, they also love to use their laws on other things they don't like, such as other people's abortions (not their own, mind you -- that's different), LGBT people, and immigrants (especially scary turban men).

Maybe that is a household figure or something? Or maybe it's actually the total across the entire country divided by the population, which would include many pieces of clothing companies buy, not individuals?

If it weren't for Manchin and Sinema in 2021, they could have added both DC and PR as he 51st and 52nd states

AFAIK, fillibuster applies. So you actually need 60 votes to really do anything controversial (with a handful of exceptions). So no, having those two people wouldn't have made a difference. We'd need 10 half decent republicans and those don't exist.

IMO the blame needs to be correctly focused. As awful as they are, bad things aren't happening because of 2 senators who were elected as Democrats (but don't vote like them). The bad things happen because of the many, many republican senators who almost consistently refuse to vote for morally right bills.

Like, there's no good reason for PR and DC to not be states. Except for the fact that they'd both lean Democrat, so the GOP cannot allow it. They care only about winning, not democracy.