> It's a terrible protocol for the human person web. You can't even host a visitable website for people who use HTTP/3 without getting the permission of a third party corporation to temporarily lend you an TLS cert.
Um, so many parts of web hosting require willing actions of corporations. Network, servers, etc. Why are you singling out just one part?
While the refutations of this guy seem scientifically sound, they are tone deaf. He’s speaking to perceptions. There is a problem with how the issue is communicated in common parlance.
It’s hard to keep up with the climate change denial propaganda noise machine without stooping to their level. In the end motivated reasoning means people will value cheap hydrocarbon energy over global benefits of less climate change. Just look at the French gilet jaunes protests.
a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well.
and
b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource.
"Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works.
What should X do ?
The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume to much hydrocarbon energy".
People don't value cheap hydrocarbon energy over the future of earth, but they value their own life, and no solution exists, for a lot of regions in france, to allow you to cease using your car.
In some places solutions are implemented in a weird manner, I personally had to take the bus at 5 am to go to " Lycée", where most of my courses began around 9-10am (if there were courses the morning) and then at 8pm to go back home (I was home at 9h30pm approximately, depending on the traffic).
Lycée was great, now if I had to do this before and after a day of work, it would highly resemble what I call "a boring life".
But still, while 3 hours or more in my life were dedicated to " transit" and a lot of time in the morning was dedicated to "wait", other people living in the city were just sleeping in the morning and probably reading their lessons or socializing.
Bus was taking a lot more time than cars to commute is these regions because there's a lot of villages to connect to the town. (My village was the last of the line). As of today, there is still only two bus that connects the village to the town, one in the morning at 5am, and one in the night, at 8pm.
X could first of all stop voting for people who scream "This isn't real" and start voting for people who say "We can do something about this"
But they won't do that, because X doesn't think the climate is actually changing from human actions because they have picked one of the several half-assed narratives that claim to "prove" it.
Right. When the society makes driving easy and alternatives hard people rationally choose to drive. Government sponsored roads and parking tip the scales heavily in favor of cars. The solution is to add infrastructure so less driving is necessary. More centrally located housing. Walkable distances between destinations thanks to a not spread out city layout. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, safe bike lanes, frequently arriving buses and trains. This is exactly what 15 minute cities are about!
Based on the numbers I found from a few minutes of searching you are incorrect. Some phones get resold or reused, most do not. Only 25% of people are using a secondhand phone and the phone population is increasing at 5x the human rate.
If you read the article there was also a nearly 20% increase in T1D. T1D is primarily caused by viral or autoimmune system actions. The T2 increase of 60% is likely because of comorbidities increasing the over all rate. Lower insulin output+less exercise.
We're better off without any other defense from viral infection?
We have no other defense from measles except vaccination? Are you saying that, for measles, quarantines are ineffective, isolation is ineffective, negative pressure rooms are ineffective, contact tracing is ineffective? And we're better off because those are ineffective and we only have a single layer of defense?
I'm a trained and experienced Cybersecurity professional, and by analogy to our Defense in Depth concepts, we're better off when there are multiple effective, overlapping, simultaneous defenses against some kind of attack. I think it would be foolish to abolish other defensive measures against measles only because vaccines are allegedly so effective.
I knew a guy whose Linux login password was "abc", because he used MFA he said he didn't care.
I'm not entirely sure I understand you. Are you saying that sales taxes can be reduced to compensate for carbon taxes?
If so that may also have side effects as sales tax can be distortionary and may be more difficult to control (as you'd need to change sales taxes whenever you change carbon taxes.) Not saying it's necessarily bad, it'll just be important to take care of side effects to make it a good idea.
Yes, reduce sales tax enough to offset new revenues from a carbon tax.
This may start a philosophical shift from the type of tax to the total revenue needed, which I think would be helpful. That would give increased room for flexibility in the form of taxation, which might give easier paths to address legitimate concerns with tax types.
Um, so many parts of web hosting require willing actions of corporations. Network, servers, etc. Why are you singling out just one part?