So the uk taxman is funding terrorists now. I thought that was supposed to be frowned upon…

First: rude. I am paying attention. You on the other hand, made that accusation then quoted text you clearly didnt read.

“…without any actual steps to reduce carbon emissions in power generation”

Now disregarding your wall of patronisation, my statement was accurate : you did not, until said wall, make any comment on reducing the carbon emissions in power generation.

Your references to the economics of power generation supply and price may be accurate in the us but not in all countries. In the uk for example it would need political change to alter the way in which electricity is priced (everything is pegged to the price of gas supply) so renewables at the network level dont get to outcompete on price as you suggest.

To try and avoid the argument you seem to want I’ll close with this:

Being more efficient in our use of natural reaources and energy is inherently beneficial and therefore good. But if it enables powers and politics to take efficiency as licence to continue supporting the fossil fuel industry, then it will come at the cost of global commitments to achieving net zero in energy production.

Zero emission production is worth more than efficiency of use. Especially while the us tech hegemony seem intent on destroying the global economy to build out ai services.

It’s fine to have a different opinion but you havent actually contradicted anything. You just listed adaptations without any actual steps to reduce carbon emissions in power generation.

Efficiency may help with other resources but for power generation, efficiency alone is just a strategy to lose the planet more slowly, and given the increasing speed of change in recent years i’m not even sure it can achieve that to a meaningful extent. Hell, look at coca cola: they could, all alone, reduce plastic pollution massively overnight by removing 500ml bottles and selling only alu cans. They have the production facilities already but they dont do it.

Being more efficient about resources used is all well and good, but we still NEED to get carbon neutral on energy production. And that is something that requires political will; and politicians will not touch net zero (or upset rich lobbies) if they think the electorate will settle for an efficiency drive.

Already the nuance in this thread far exceeds anything the political class will engage on. Just in a few comments we have introduced separating power generation from use of other natural resources like water, and factoring human mobility, architecture, materials technologies, national housing stocks, and more.

There are just too many places for the energy companies and polluters to dissemble and hide. Net Zero is a simple, single target that can be measured and people can be held accountable.

Problem is that it seems like every time i hear ‘adapt to climate change’ it is almost immediately followed by a reduction in effort to achieve net zero.

Adapting shouldnt be part of the conversation because it is not an option at this point. - Its a simple inevitability because so much damage has been done.

Net zero sooner vs later simply changes how many people over how much of the planet actually survive through adaptation.

Not something i need imagination for. Im not saying 3 years is optimal, but there does have to be a threshold somewhere. Personally i’d build it into user settings to allow users to self select a time period they accept.

Pretty sure that the gdpr specifically precludes forever retention. Data should be retained as long as is necessary and whether 1, 3, 5, 10 or however many years, sooner or later deletion is appropriate, and the timeline depends on what is reasonable.

3 years is a long time to not log in and if a court decided that it exceeded a ‘reasonable’ period for legitimate interest the fines can go to 10% of global revenue. The law encourages risk averse behaviour.

They could make a better system where the user sets the timeline but it would be impossible to predict the return.

On this one i think its probably driven by risk management not nefarious intent.

But its not age verification thats actually being implemented. It’s identity verification mislabelled to take advantage of dumb legislation with yet more privacy over reach.

Supernotes.app

Linux Mint

Rockbox

Sayonara music player

Syncthing

Should be banning endless manipulative opaque algorithmic presentations for everyone.

Privacy? Dignity? Self-determination?

Mass Surveillance. And depending on how yoy feel about it, it could be described as harrassment. That’s how i feel when i am forced to use android by banks or government institutions with whom i have no choice but to deal with.

I don’t think I understand this. I don’t actually want to pay with my phone, so thats a non-problem to me, but when I can access my bank with a browser on any pc in the world, why do they need attestation on a mobile? I dont see why the requirement is inconsistent.