Also good for the environment, mostly the not eating meat part. Especially if you buy them dried in bulk you can cut down on your food and packaging waste. Even the lack of fruits and vegetables is good for not drying up California, probably not good for your long term health though. Also fuck billionaires

Probably cause he thinks he’ll spoil the Democrats campaign. Probably doesn’t like his politics since if he ever did get in his policies would liquidate people like crow. West did return the money though

Meanwhile Harris’ donors are just as sus and are expecting something for their money. Whether that be AIPAC and getting her to continue the genocide or health insurance companies getting her to flip on Medicare for all. You don’t see her returning or rejecting any money from them.

As a west supporter I’m fine with this. Though I’m not fully convinced on the magnitude of the spoiler effect, eg. If 2% want to vote for west that doesn’t mean that those 2% vote for Kamala if he’s off the ballot, they’ll most likely just not vote. The race in Penn seems really tight though so anything to get Harris over the line is good.

If you arent in a swing state ( eg. Margin bigger then 10%) and think Kamala’s tacking too far right then id recommend looking into west. He and stein get a lot of slander on here because people are deathly afraid of spoilers but his platform is actually pretty good if you want to do a protest vote. Again in a non-swing state so everyone doesn’t come after me for “helping trump”

I mean you’re gonna find a lot more plutocratic ghouls on Harris’ donor list then his.

Waivers exist and are very easy to enforce in this situation. Either you’d have to sign one with your lease or hoa agreement. If not then then the room would have some sort of access control and in order to go in you’d have to sign a waiver. It’s the same as a gym, pool, rooftop area where you can also easily hurt or kill yourself if your dumb.

Insurance companies don’t care about access controlled areas with dangerous objects, otherwise shooting ranges wouldn’t exist. They care about random people coming into your lobby, tripping and then suing the place because they didn’t sign a waiver.

Partially, even if you got rid of the lawns the houses would still take up significantly more space for both the road infrastructure as well as the houses themselves.

You could go out to the middle of the forest and yell, would disturb less people that way anyway.

You could also have a community workshop in the basement like how a lot of buildings have gyms these days. Similar to gyms it would probably have more machines as well since the cost can be spread out. You probably can’t justify buying a lathe for one project but a lathe for a whole apartment block makes more sense.

Yeah, but most people don’t live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres

Fuck it I’ll take the down votes, he’s right. Ukraine is losing this war and stand no chance of winning back there lost territory, barring western countries putting troops on the ground. The longer the war goes on, the more territory the Russians gain and the more Ukraine’s manpower gets drained. The only people who stand to benefit from the war continuing is the Russians and western defense contractors.

Obviously fuck Russia for starting this needless war but you have to understand when to cut your losses and stop pouring money and lives into a losing quagmire.

If you live in a swing state or any state that is up for grabs, then yeah don’t vote for third party. If your in a deep blue/red state, I’m talking > 15 percent swing, vote for whoever you want in the presidential, your votes just going to get collapsed into the state vote for the electoral college any way. Should still vote for the two parties or whoever’s competitive in state and local elections because your vote can have an effect.

If the electoral college says my vote effectively doesn’t matter in deciding the next president since I’m in California, then at least let me use my vote to send some sort of message.

Yeah but they were mostly aristocrats who hated the uppity new rich bourgeois as much as they hated the peasants.

Most of the ‘electricity’ emissions on that nice pie graph isn’t joe bob’s playstation, it’s industrial power.

Again please cite some sources and look at the actual data. Adding in electricity and looking at end use does up industrial but only up to 30% . It ups commercial and residential far more to 31%, your right though most of the electricity isn’t going towards joes PlayStation it’s going towards heating and cooling joes house.

Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings also increase substantially when emissions from electricity end-use are included, due to the relatively large share of electricity use mostly building related (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; lighting; and appliances) in these sectors

Again personal consumption choices have an effect on this, even barring the choice of where to live the amount of energy needed to heat and cool a home goes up as the size of the building increases. Heating and cooling a large detached single family home is way less efficient then heating and cooling a small apartment. Like a big truck no one’s forcing you to get a big house and the choice you make has climate impacts.

I agree auto companies are largely responsible for the mess we’re in with transportation, but the solution isn’t to just put our hands up and say we need to hold them accountable, that won’t happen in the current environment. We all need to make the personal choice to drive less, and take more public transit. If public transit numbers go up then politicians will actually start prioritizing it and improvements will be made which will cause more people to take transit causing a positive feedback loop. If traffic numbers go down as well the government won’t have to spend money on adding another lane to the freeway and would save on road maintenance due to cars wearing them down less, allowing more money to be available for transit and adding to the feedback loop.

To kickstart that feedback loop though we’ll need people to choose to take a more inconvenient transport option at the beginning, and you aren’t going to get people to make that choice by saying there actions don’t matter and that it’s all the corporations fault so you driving a mile to CVS is fine.

Could you please give some sources instead of pulling numbers out of thin air. Because the numbers don’t seem to align with what your saying since industry only accounts for 23 % of emissions, so unless holding companies responsible includes completely eliminating them and there emissions you aren’t going to get a 20-30 % reduction in emissions. That 20-30% your talking about can actually be obtained if Americans just stopped driving and flying. Hell we can get almost double that “measly 1.5%” by Americans just driving 10% less then they are. Cars and air travel are emitting just as much as those evil corporations everyone likes to blame, and to stop climate change we’ll need to rein in both. Thats just cars, it doesn’t account for other consumer choices like eating meat and fast fashion that also have huge impacts.

Your missing the big one that most people don’t want to hear, eat less / no meat. That’s about the biggest decision your average person can make that will make the most impact, going vegetarian is about equivalent to not driving but most Americans need to drive, they don’t need to eat meat.

Corporations aren’t forcing you to buy a bigger house, a bigger car, to eat meat or to fly across the country regularly, those are personal consumption choices that are driving climate change. You can blame the corporations for pushing you to consume with advertising or not doing there best to minimize the impact of that consumption but fundamentally there’s no way to make a carbon neutral meat burger that the average person could consume regularly. It’s not just corporations that benefit from ignoring climate costs, the average consumer does as well

I mean you probably are a communist to this guy. If you mace him and he can’t insult you based on your race / ethnicity then he’ll probably just call you a communist.

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

It’s the trans women in sports of veganism, it’s such a small part of the issue and no one in the group will usually bring it up. But people who are against them will use it to discredit and divide them even though they don’t really care about the underlying issues they claim to be for: women’s sports, cat nutrition and the way larger problems with them.

I mean a lot of people are feeding there cats cheap dry kibble that has almost no resemblance to the meat it was rendered from. If your argument is that it’s abuse if you aren’t feeding your cat what it wants then there’s a lot of cat abusers out there.

If it’s libertarian it’s libertarian socialist. There’s no property or capital on here, posts get boosted by collective voting, not based off your following or account. There’s not even an idea of karma, your account means basically nothing here. A capitalist libertarian social media would be something like nostr or what bluesky is claiming it’ll eventually do where you completely own your account and your following and you can use that social capital as you wish.