Do you think that Facebook doesn’t cost money to build or run?

A crappy years-old ARM-powered smartphone SOC stuck inside a TV costs next to nothing.

• 7zip (archive tool) People still use Winrar for whatever reason.
• Firefox (web browser) - It’s well known but still under-used. Stop using chrome. Chrome will be the end of the free internet.
• windirstat (visualise used disk space) - I use this to clear free space
• musicbee (music player) - replaced VLC with this because VLC has had a bug that makes it not playback FLAC files properly for like… A year?
• Screen2Gif (gif recorder & editor)
• ShareX (screenshot/video tool)
• Open Video Downloader (GUI tool to rip YouTube etc.)
• uBlock Origin (ad-blocker) addon
• Sponsorblock (sponsorship skipper) addon

I fucking hate Teracopy with a vengeance. It’s such a buggy piece of shit. I have never seen it not fuck up and crash when you ask it to do something remotely challenging.

Robocopy is the only thing I use for serious file copy/move jobs.

What’s your experience here? I’m interested to hear about projects that you have done this for.

The source engine has code that’s over 20 years old. A monolithic project like a game engine, which is statically and dynamically linked with god knows how many libraries they don’t even have code for, let alone permission, to compile in a different architecture, is not gonna be an easy thing to do.

I’d have thought the pain point would have been the processor architecture (ARM64) rather than operating system - MacOS still supports AMD64 using a compatibility layer but it would probably be quite a drawback to game performance.

“The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”

I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.

When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.

It’s not the first of its kind though. It’s just the first in Africa. There are already a bunch of these in Europe and America.

If the researchers are in Europe then it doesn’t work for the plant to be in Africa. I don’t know why you’re arguing such an obviously wrong position lol

Governments are probably already directly influencing Lemmy with the usual astroturfing at the very least

See, what you’re having trouble with here is that you don’t want to support censorship, even though you do. You don’t like the connotations, so you find some excuse that makes it more comfortable for you. It’s cowardly and dishonest. The word means what it means. Call me a pedant, tell me I’m not adding to the conversation, I don’t care. You’re still supporting censorship whether you want to wear that label or not.

The term predates that usage by well over 2000 years. Roman censors would essentially punish people for immoral behaviour by taking away their rights or by reducing their status in some way - for example, punishing them for speaking out of turn or publishing offensive material.

Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.

Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?

If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.

Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.

The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.

We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.

High unionization levels are associated with positive outcomes across multiple indicators of economic, personal, and democratic well-being

Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.

Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.

Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.

Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave

How unions help all workers

Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions

Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers

Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.

Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families

Sure, I’m happy to support building large scale experimental establishments to test the theories, but that’s not what this is at all. This is a commercial installation in Africa, of all places. Why would the European research teams build a research facility so far away? That doesn’t make sense.

Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.

Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.

Lower risk often means lower reward

For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.

Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.

100% renewable is absolutely achievable and viable, according to many industry expert ye including the IEC. Arguing otherwise is fossil fuel industry propaganda.

Nuclear energy isn’t really part of the solution. It can continue to exist as it currently does but building more nuclear power isn’t going to help, it’s too expensive and too slow to provision. The best solution is to double, triple or quadruple funding/investment in renewables and infrastructure. That’s very achievable and the most viable option.

I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.

I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.

I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.

Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.

There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.

As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.

That’s what everybody said about solar / renewables

I don’t think that’s true, can you back up your claim?

we’re going to need the technology

I support research and development of the technology, because it’s something which could be useful in the future. But this article is about building carbon capture facilities today, which is a big waste of money.

Censorship usually is taken to mean the suppression of speech or writing. If you’re legally prohibited from saying or writing something, you’re being censored, by definition.

Where are you getting your definition of censorship as meaning content being edited?

It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.

I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:

“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”

If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.

How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?