In Boost for Lemmy you can see lists of everything you posted, commented, upvoted or downvoted in your profile.

In German it’s even funnier if you translate haunted with “besessen” as it means “occupied by bad souls” and “being sit on” at the same time.

In the beginning of COVID I ran out of tea once and since then I got used to just drink warm water from the tap in most cases. 🚰

I never said that I want to just wait. We should leverage all possibilities in parallel to reduce the carbon footprint:

• Increase green energy: solar power, wind turbines, tidal power etc.
• Reduce energy consumption
• Find ways to increase prices of products and services that are bad for the environment (not only CO2, but also methane, PTFE etc.)
• Fine companies which violate environmental laws or thresholds with significantly higher amounts than today
• Increase tolls in imported products and ban imports of products that do not meet sustainability criteria […]

All these measures are important steps to take to reduce the average footprint. But still on top of all these things the total number of humans is a signicifant multipler for the total footprint.

A human can only use less ressources only no human will take no ressources.

Once again: I do not promote state-forced birth control, I do not condemn parents, children etc. I’m simply saying that if people voluntarily decide to reproduce at a lower scale, that that has a positive impact on the planet and in the end helps the future generations.

If we simply just stopped using fossil fuels today without a smooth transition to green energies, all supply chains will shatter immediately, people will freeze to death, you’ll have a world-wide famine and neighbors fighting for the last remaining ressources.

Furthermore, the only way to force such an immediate exit from fossils would be to establish a violent dictatorship as there’s no democratic majority for it.

As much as I’d like the transition to happen as soon as possible, it’s pretty obvious that the solution can’t be as simple as ‘just forbid using fossils’.

I think the majority of people would prefer to use green energy but - as said in my previous - I do not think that the same majority is willing to accept significant cut backs on their lifestyle. As long as they can continue to live as they’re used to they’re all in on the green deal. But when they are asked to use less individual transportation in favor of public transport, lower their heating by a few degrees and wear a sweater instead or buy regional food over stuff that is imported from overseas, then unfortunately a lot of people react in a rejective or even aggressive way. Green politicians in Germany for instance are confronted with a lot of hate for all attempts to initiate some change.

So to me it seems like phasing out fossils in a democratic manner is only possible over a longer period of time, unfortunately probably several decades.

I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn’t even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it’s all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?

And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.

I have no clue why you’re now bringing up eugenics. Like WTF! Where the hell did I write anything even remotely related to that? Or anything against queer folks?

And just because the richest people are by far the worst polluters doesn’t invalidate my argument at all. If the overall number of humans changes over time, that also impacts the number of the super rich. If we have 10 billion humans instead of 8, there will be more rich people, more middle class and more people suffering from poverty.

On top of that more people mean more natural ressources have to be consumed for heating, agriculture, transportation etc.

We definitely should change society in a way that the super polluters are held accountable for their damage but that doesn’t mean that this is the only relevant figure and the only thing that helps.

A slowly shrinking humanity has definitely a better ecological impact than a growing one. And as long as that happens without external force, that’s a positive thing for me.

I read through the article and still can’t see how my post is related to facism. If we assume a number of X humans with an average environmental footprint of Y that leads to an overall footprint for humanity of X * Y.

If we want to bring that number down, this can by achieved by lowering either of the factors. If you want to cut pollution by let’s say 50% with a constant polulation, it goes along with harsher cut backs for the individuals’ lifestyle. Looking at the current discourse, such cut backs are highly controverse and measures in that direction are rarely accepted (‘they want to take out meat’, ‘they want to take our cars’ etc.).

If the number of humans decreased by 25% due to a naturally lowered birth rate, it means that the individual pollution must be lowered only by 33% instead of 50% to achieve the same result. I would argue that less individual impact will lead to a higher acceptance for a environment-friendly humanity.

If I wrote ‘kill the poor’ or something like that I’d get your point but I just said that fewer people will have a positive impact on nature. Which is not facism but a simple fact.

By the way. Your liked Wikipedia article also warns about the term ‘ecofacism’ being misused by the far right to discredit any form of pro-environment statements. So, please think twice before if you really want to use that term and call random people fascists.

Detractors on the political right tend to use the term “ecofascism” as a hyperbolic general pejorative against all environmental activists, including more mainstream groups such as Greenpeace, prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg, and government agencies tasked with protecting environmental resources.

What exactly is facism about naturally (non-enforced) lowering birth rates?

While lower birth rates may lead to economic issues on a medium term (too many old people VS. too few young people), it’s probably one of the most efficient measures to combat climate change. Less people comsuming ressources means less pollution and hopefully also less competition and conflicts for said ressources.

Even though I’ll be probably one of the many old people one day that the society may not be able to support adequately, I think that it’s positive news for humanity.

From my perspective, the best way to deal with a shrinking population would be a shift away from capitalism in its current form. Infinite growth, bigger, faster etc. is not a realistic and definitely not a sustainable target.

We should focus on the basic needs to make food, housing, care etc. affordable for everyone with as few working hours as possible, so that less people are able to do the job.

That’s new to me. For me so far it was sufficient to follow this part from the linked article…

Or, if Windows is already installed, from either the Sign on screen or the Start menu, select Power (Power button icon) > hold Shift while selecting Restart. Select Troubleshoot > Advanced options > UEFI Firmware settings.

As you’re currently using Windows on your PC, you might have to do an extended reboot. By default Windows skips the UEFI/USB step in the boot sequence to make Windows boot slightly faster.

Check out this link for reference’ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/boot-to-uefi-mode-or-legacy-bios-mode?view=windows-11

The problem with most crypto compared to regular money is that it’s often seen as an investment. However, one of the most important factors for a currency that is used in everyday transactions is stability and predictability. Money is supposed to ease trading goods and services as a universal middleman. It’s not supposed to make someone rich who invested first.

Of course there’s also inflation and deflation with regular money but as soon as that’s getting out of control, it typically leads to serious economic issues.

I often read that the UI is pretty unintuitive compared to the commercial competitors. I anyhow started with FreeCAD three years ago and never looked back. I design a lot of functional 3D prints with it and managed to solve all the issues I’ve faced so far. As I started with FreeCAD and never tried the alternatives, I also don’t miss the possibly more intuitive UIs 😁

I don’t think being interested in the (ancestors’) race of a co-worker is necessary racist. I worked with people with all kinds of cultural backgrounds and it might be just an interesting topic to talk about. If someone has family in Iran, Senegal or Indonesia that’s definitely more interesting to me than a conversation about weather or last night’s football game.

Some time ago a client of me was looking for a solution to add watermarks to PDF files from their local on premise ERP system. The ERP system itself is a standard software. Obviously, they have a license to use that ERP but they definitely do not own the source code of it. Thus, they cannot change the license to AGPL or integrate it somehow.

I thought about writing a little plugin with Java in iFile to do that which is published unser AGPL. Using something under AGPL would mean that we have to make the entire solution available under that license.

Question 1: What is the entire solution in that scenario?

• Is it the part of the plugin that deals with watermarks?
• Is it the entire PDF handling plugin?
• Is it the entire process in the ERP system?
• Is it the entire ERP system that calls the plugin?
• Would it include sattelite systems that are connected to that ERP system that indirectly use the PDFs and thus potentially ‘infest’ the entire IT landscape?
• If the PDFs are send automatically to business partners of my client and they process it internally in their systems, are their systems now part of the solution?

Question 2: AGPL says users must have access to the source code of the solution no matter if they use it locally, over network etc. But Who is the user in such a scenario?

• The IT department of my client?
• The end users of the ERP system of my client who are only interested in the PDF but definitely not in the source code?
• Everyone at my client?
• Including business partners who might have access to the PDFs?
• Everyone?

Question 3: My client is not a software company, so they never published ANY source code or software. Where would you publish the code?

• The plugin for PDF creation would be called only in the background. The frontend is only standard ERP so I couldn’t easily put a link to the source code in the GUI.
• My client’s intranet?
• My client’s homepage?
• GitHub or a similar platform?

There is a lot of uncertainty when using AGPL software in a business context which will - in many cases - lead to the decision not to use the software at all.

I think that question is hard to answer as there are very few topics of everyday life that aren’t at least remotely political.

Big cars, weapons, traditional family models (e.g. stay at home moms), focussing on traditional industries such as petrol than new technology such as solar etc. are all typical conservative topics. I mean conservative already implies with its name that you want to conserve the ‘as is’.

Contrarily, progressive and liberal people will be more open to changes and trying new things: food, new ways of transportation, new business models, other family concepts.

Who is responsible to provide that fast food job? Does she have to apply for it herself? What if no one wants to hire her because of the bad media reputation?

deleted by creator