goes to show most Europeans are shitty mannerless folks

Well, that’s uncalled for… I can show you American MMA fighters saying/doing some pretty fucked up things, but it wouldn’t really be fair to make such a statement about Americans, would it?

EDIT: Just to give an example, here and here is a (at the time) UFC champ, who suffered precisely 0 consequences for any of this.

As a general rule, people who pursue fighting as a career are typically not great people.

When I watched the video, I was shocked this even was a thing that happened.

I heard about the controversy for a while, heard some people say when they saw the fight they “understood why there was questioning”, and heard something about a punch. As an avid MMA fan, I expected a scary knockout, like those where you hold your breath until you see the person start moving again.

Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the video, and watched an Olympic boxing fight for the first time. I see of them wearing headgear, one of them gets hit with a few good punches, gets to pause to adjust headgear, gets hit with a few more good punches and calls off the fight without her knees ever even buckling or getting stunned, and doesn’t even have a mark on her face. Perhaps the neatest, least harmful fight I’ve ever seen.

To be clear, I don’t hold it against her for realizing she probably won’t be winning and quitting before taking unnecessary damage, I’m just shocked anyone would think Imane is trans or a man based on that fight. Imagine if those people ever saw Amanda Nunes, or Dakota Ditcheva, or Zhang Weili. But I’d guess most of those people never actual watch women compete in any sports unless there is a controversy like this one, at which point they become experts.

The scale on the left doesn’t start at zero, so the difference is smaller than the size of the bars make it seem. The difference between #1 Slackware, and last spot Arch, is 0.75 points in a 0 to 10 scale, but the bar size of Slackware is about 2.5x bigger than the bar for the Arch users.

I can’t vouch for every Linux distro that claims to be user-friendly, but I’ve fully switched to Linux Mint a couple of months ago, and I’ve had no issues. The only times I’ve used the console are when I want to use it.

My biggest worry before fully switching was playing pirated games, or games that I bought outside of Steam, but using Lutris it has been pretty straight forward.

For my comment specifically I’m not worried about the economy, but the unit cost of energy. Simply put if nuclear has a higher unit cost that means we can’t replace as much fossil fuel generation vs other lower unit cost sources of energy for the same price.

I’ll put it another way so you might better understand my point: what would you have said 10 or 15 years ago when someone mentions that solar is a bad idea because it would cost more? Because up until recently it did cost more, and people did use it as an argument against it. And now your (and other people’s) main criticism of nuclear is that it’s not as cheap as an energy source that we’ve been heavily investing into for a decade.

You have, however, picked a very specific and unlikely event here

I showed several examples. The ones you mentioned, such as earthquakes, are not likely to affect one source more than another, but events which block out the sun obviously disproportionately affect the production of solar energy.

it’s no longer the cheapest or fastest way to achieve that

Neither was solar when we started to invest in it, as I mentioned earlier. That came from improving and investing in the technology - which also bumped solar into the safest energy source, right after nuclear, which used to be the safest.

You don’t need sunlight to grow crops, you just need energy; which in this scenario would require an energy source that is not the sun.

And you’ve said absolutely nothing of substance while misconstructing what I’m saying and engaging in the type anti-science behavior that were it to come from climate deniers this community would rip on.

Firstly, the “planet killer” example, was just an extreme example to demonstrate how an unexpected climate event can render solar panels completely useless. Another example I gave you was ashes from volcanic eruptions. This is simple deflection and bad faith argumentation. Secondly, let’s continue on “planet killer event” anyway:

and if it happened now

And if it happened in 20, 50, or 100 years? Is your argument “I think if it happens now we’re fucked, so it’s pointless to prepare for the eventuality of it”?

the dust cloud would essentially kill our civilisation as we know it. a small percentage of people would survive, and it wouldn’t matter if they had nuclear power or not, there are other power sources other than solar

How would it kill civilization as we know it? Define “civilization”, and tell me what it would look like in that scenario, and why it’s not worth to try to minimize its destruction. And what leads you to believe only a small percent of the population would survive? And are they not worth preserving? Because even a small percentage can’t eat or breathe dust, and as I said, with enough power you can grow food, have clean water, and make breathable air. And what other power sources are you referring to? Nuclear is the second safest energy source after solar by a distant margin, and except for maybe wind and solar, it’s also the most environmentally friendly - which is important given these power sources would have to be setup in advance of the events in question, which could take hundreds or thousands of years to happen.

I’m tired of arguing this, especially with someone who doesn’t seem interested in arguing in good faith and is quite stubborn in remaining unscientific, so I’ll be leaving it at this.

then I think we have bigger problems

Care to point them out? As I’ve said, and expect to be common knowledge on a (I would expect) scientifically leaning community, the dinosaurs weren’t killed by the meteor, their death was caused by the blacking out of the sun. You have access to energy, you can make air filters, grow food, purify water. If you don’t have energy, then you die.

Regardless, this is a deflection from the main point, that was merely an extreme example, even volcanic eruptions could cause huge disruptions if you depend too much on solar power.

sight

The meteor didn’t kill the dinosaurs, it was the dust cloud that did so by blacking out the sun. If you have sources of energy that are not reliant on the sun, it is very much possible to survive it. You can use artificial light to make grow food, and you can even make air processors if plants start dying. But you can’t do that if you have no power.

I already mentioned 2.

Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years.

Picture a super volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles

Here’s a quote from the wiki on super volcanos:

Large-volume supervolcanic eruptions are also often associated with large igneous provinces, which can cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash. These can cause long-lasting climate change (such as the triggering of a small ice age) and threaten species with extinction. The Oruanui eruption of New Zealand’s Taupō Volcano (about 25,600 years ago) was the world’s most recent VEI-8 eruption.

Also, you wouldn’t need it to cover all of Australia to be disastrous, just enough to block a significant amount of solar farms.

Lemmy most of the time: Makes fun of people always bringin up “the economy” as if that’s what’s really important

Also Lemmy when it comes to nuclear: “But the economy!”

What happens in case of a sudden abnormal weather event that blocks out most of the sunlight? Picture a super volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles. Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years. Or just think about northern European countries that barely get any light in winter; Portugal is a very sunny country, we have invested a lot into solar, and sometimes we still get energy from Spain (who use nuclear btw).

Also, I’ve been hearing this whole “it takes too long to build nuclear plants” since at least early 2010s; imagine where we’d be if we’d just started building plants then. I can picture the same thing being said in 2035-2040, while fossil fuels still have not been completely dropped.

This getting heavily downvoted with no replies shows just how much of anti-nuclear is simply based on propaganda and fearmongering, not science. Nuclear is the second safest energy source in the world, nearly tied with solar for first, and actually was the first until not too long ago. And that is despite the heavy investment into renewables and disinvestment into nuclear. If anyone is that worried about the dangers of nuclear to people and the environment, they should turn their attention to hydro-energy (not to speak of fossil fuels, obviously).

What are even the major disasters regarding nuclear? One, Chernobyl, was in the USSR in the 80s; does anyone remember what phones looked like in the 80s? The other was in Fukushima, which is located in a country known for earthquakes and tsunamis, and it was not build to handle such events; and it still was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. I think I’ve also heard about one in the UK, but that was in the fucking 50s, and even smaller than Fukushima.

Until a weather event blocks out most of the sunlight. An extreme scenario would be what happened to the dinosaurs, however smaller scale versions or that, such as large volcano eruptions, seem entirely possible and could heavily restrict the amount of sunlight you have access to for long periods of time.

Portugal lies in Southern Europe, we get plenty of sun, and we make heavy use of solar, but that still isn’t enough sometimes, and I’m pretty sure we sometimes get our energy from Spain, who themselves use nuclear.

Ah, thank you for the explanation, I think I get it.

I don’t know about this in depth, but from what another user in this thread said, a flatpak can’t ask a portal to have access to two files at once. If I’m understanding correctly, that would explain why Librewolf needs permission to access ~/Downloads, since it can be downloading more than one file at once, and it needs access to all those files in ~/Downloads at the same time.

EDIT: I got a bit mixed up with what you were saying, but nevertheless, if this is true, then Librewofl would still need permission to access ~/Downloads and so be marked as “potentially unsafe”.

Not for the average/casual user, which is why this post exists.

The average person will look at that and see the ‘!’ in a triangle and became scared of what it can do to their system, even though it has no more permissions than a system package. Alternatively, they will become desensitized and learn to ignore it, resulting in installing flatpacks from untrusted and unverified sources.

Overall, I just think the idea around having to sandbox all flatpaks is not a good idea. To give a concrete example, Librewolf is marked as “potentially unsafe” because it has access to the download folder, but if I want to use it to open a file that isn’t in “downloads” I have to use flatseal to give it extra permissions - it’s the worst of both worlds! Trying so hard to comply with flatpak guidelines that it gets in the way of doing things, and still not being considered safe enough.

Linux and Android handles .webp just fine tho

I can’t speak for all distros and DEs, and I also don’t do many image related things, but I’m using Linux Mint Cinnamon and the default desktop background manager doesn’t support .webp. Sometimes I see a cool image that I want to use and I have to convert it; other times, when I notice it’s .webp, I just give up on that image.

Mint’s default wallpaper manager doesn’t, and Discord doesn’t let me pick a .webp as an avatar. Those seem like 2 pretty big ones that don’t work.

I’ve also run into other less common examples over time, but those are more random spread out things and I don’t remember what they are.

Mind if I ask what you are basing this on? Because the experience I’m having in my country tells me that would probably just reinforce the status quo, and then the far-right would have a huge increase.

In my country the center-“left” soc-dems (who have been leaning more and more liberal) were in power since 2014, with a majority on the left; in 2022 that party got a majority of votes, and the rest of the left loss a lot of votes, but the right was still in minority. This has essentially resulted in them being able to keep doing whatever they want and what they’ve always done and not keep their promises because they know a bunch of people always vote for them anyway because “it’s them or the right wins!”. Then in late 2023 there was a corruption scandal that resulted in us having new elections early this year where the far right saw unprecedented growth, the “center”-right party won the elections, and there is now a majority right in parliament. At no point during these 10 years did our country turn further left; the right certainly didn’t.

My point is, based on that, I would guess that having liberals (who are the ones in charge of the Dems) in power so long with a majority would just result in them consolidating power, the rest of the left to be pushed out, and eventually for the far right to see a renewed growth.

The real solution would either be for everyone to vote for a new different left-wing party (if we’re already talking about convincing “everyone” to vote for Dems, why not dream a little higher?), or turn to mutual aid and grassroots movements. And a party that wins elections will almost certainly never want to change the electoral system because they benefit from it the most; again, the best hope for that might be getting behind one party whose mission purpose is exactly to turn away from a 2 party system.

I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

• Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

• Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.