Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@ivalaine @bhaggart The Wikipedia article you want to verify should have sources listed in the article that you can use to verify it. If not, delete the page.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild ah ok – here I'd expect prices to reflect the costs, which are mostly energy: which costs more, transport from Spain or powering the greenhouse? (to oversimplify) Farm subsidies, which are evil for a variety of reasons, might throw this off, though.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild Still not following you. If all prices go up, then the energy-intensive products still cost more, all else being equal, so same steering effect as before.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild I don't get how that would cause misleading price signals about carbon impact.

@edwiebe @georgramer @alexwild Why would billionaires act in that specific way? Can you give me an example?

It seems that very roughly, the price of something reflects how much energy was used to make it – literally, that is what you are paying toward – and therefore how much carbon emissions. I know there are plenty of exceptions, but when in doubt just do whatever option involves spending less money.

@georgramer @edwiebe @alexwild It's really tough to answer questions like that – surprisingly often, the obvious choice is wrong, like paper grocery bags etc.

For your specific questions:

* I seriously doubt tearing out your central heating system is a good idea, simply because manufacturing the appliance is so energy-intensive.
* I don't know what a "Spanish farm" is, but if a local grower is *really* close it might be better? but maybe not: "industrial" farming is very efficient: e.g. big trucks are a lot cheaper per strawberry than small trucks, etc.
* I'm pretty sure delivery services are going to involve less driving than you driving to the grocery store: they can load up several orders and drive around to each one. But, if you can walk there that's probably better still.
But on all these questions, some more rigorous analysis would be interesting.

@alexwild Nah, it's about choices around consumption. Put your money where your mouth is. (Sure, a billionaire has more money to make decisions like that, but that's not the point.)

I'm sure there's some shenanigans around policy decisions like public transport, but if more people wanted to use it I guarantee there'd be more of it. etc.

@willallen but, 2 things:

1.) He could have easily traded secrets like that without moving documents to mar-a-lago or whatever. I mean, the mishandling of the documents seems orthogonal to whether he sold secrets or not?

2.) Other presidents and officials have inappropriately stored documents in their garage or whatever. Are we particularly worried about those? I don't think so, unless something new is discovered about how they were used.

The indictments talk about him showing military maps/etc or whatever to non-cleared people in his circle, though.

@illyana @juddlegum it was 2009–2013, but I think that doesn't really matter. What she was doing was incredibly clowny. (The server wasn't even configured and maintained competently!) Judd's points remain, of course – I don't think there's any reason to believe she had nefarious intent, and she cooperated with investigators. And she isn't the only Secretary of State to have a sketchy email set-up.

"no public, secure options at the time" She shouldn't have used public options, of course. I know this kind of thing has happened, but I don't think we want high level officials using hotmail.

@freemo @laurahelmuth the law does mention stripping.

@freemo @laurahelmuth in fairness, I suspect the Tennessee law was just posturing; isn't that sort of thing already illegal?

@freemo @laurahelmuth "The article makes absokutely no mention about strip shows." Not explicitly, that would have ruined the narrative, since most people today are wary of children going to strip shows, of course. But as I spelled out in my comment, the SA article refers to such a law, deceptively, to make its case about moral panics. Sounds like you fell for it, too; you should be angry about that.

"I can only imagine you are trying desperately to form some false association between drag shows (whicb typically do not have nudity) and stripping." Well that isn't very charitable of you. It's actually the SA article that does this. Isn't that ironic?

In even more detail:
* From SA: "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces" links to this article as its source: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161452175/anti-drag-show-bill-tennessee-trans-rights-minor-care-anti-lgbtq-laws
* the Tennessee regulation discussed in that NPR piece is this: https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf which is clearly about strip shows and other performances with "entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest"
* ergo: this law is the one that the SA is describing, deceptively, as "banned drag attire in public spaces". In that way SA is implying that drag shows are necessarily "prurient", which as you hint at is maybe a pretty jacked up thing to do.

Did you stop to ask yourself: is it really illegal in some state(s) to wear opposite-sex clothes? Do you *really* think that is true, that that sort of law could *possibly* get passed and withstand legal muster? Really?

----

I've seen videos of shows that were quite sexual in nature with children present. I have no idea whatsoever if the typical public library "drag queen story hour" event is remotely sexual, I've never been to one; for all I know those videos were a smear.

@laurahelmuth One of the things the article lists in its opening litany is strip shows for children. I predict that opposition to strip shows for children will remain for longer than the video-games-make-you-violent thing.

(This is what "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces." refers to. The SA verbiage is a quite misleading there, I guess the "politics opinion" section of SA maybe doesn't get the typical editorial oversight?)

@JamesBazan @laurahelmuth It's interesting to note that the "enterprise" doesn't even have to be intentional. The mass incarceration over drugs happened because of the best of intentions, for example.

@Nobody broken clock is right twice a day?

@Nobody Maybe – just maybe – gaming is talking about actual bigots? I mean, at least give them a chance to say something silly before you lose your chill.

If I say "Nazis, I hate these guys" maybe I'm just a Harrison Ford fan? Or maybe I think everyone who voted for Trump is a Nazi because I like cheap tricks like that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. See, you don't know until I say something more specific, right?

@fosserytech Maybe just ignore it if you see it?

gamingonlinux advertises "spicy opinions", so if you follow you get what you get.

Especially given the instance you're on, it's quite ban-happy, anything that smells like "your existential problems aren't worth annoying the rest of us with" likely isn't tolerated. (Don't get me wrong – I almost shed a tear at your "So sad to see people hating each other because of damn politicians." – off the rails rhetoric is definitely a huge problem.)

@Nobody @IamHappyToast Sometimes during cold weather I say "so much for global warming" as a joke – like I can't tell the difference between climate and weather or something.

Poe's law, sort of: it's possible that everyone else in this entire thread is just being silly?