Not in any way to diminish the Swedish markets, but that's partially because Nasdaq and NYSE know they can sell 'status' in listing on their US markets.
This is about the same I heard from a climatologist in my country: we are on track for 3-4 C. Is it possible though? If so - how are we not freaking out about it?
And that was a reasonable prediction at that time. Since than climate models have improved significantly, computing power has increased by several orders of magnitude, and policies and technology has changed—both as a response to the climate crises, and as technology and infrastructure improves around the world.
Today’s models predict 1.5°-2.0° C by 2040, and 4° C by 2100 if no additional climate mitigations (not even promised or pledged) are implemented. The 4° C scenario is generally regarded as unrealistic so most climate models have another prediction which accounts for some additional climate mitigation which most countries have promised and pledged and put the increase at 2°-3° in 2100.
It sounds like the only reason why the 4 degree Celsius scenario is deemed unrealistic is that people don’t like it. So they have come up with hopium about as of yet imaginary solutions and veracity of carbon pledges.
I think I agree with you. 4° is much more likely IMO than 1.5° given how governments tend to align them selves with the interest of the rich above all else. However I think at some point continuing climate inaction will not only become politically infeasible but also economically infeasible. However at that point we will have acted to little too late, and will be looking at a 2-3° warming.
Climate optimists will have you believe that 2-3° is actually not that bad, however I believe this sort of climate optimism amounts to climate denial, 2-3° is definitely a horror scenario effectively destroying our current way of life. Millions of people will die, millions more will be forced to flee—and they won’t be accepted as refugees, wars will break out, our economy will collapse, and the poor will starve in a 2-3° scenario.
How do you know all that will happen in your second paragraph? Is there a model making such a prediction for society in the 2-3° scenario? If skeptics of such societal projections are denialists, then are you a doomer?
There's another possibility. Society will adapt and things won't be nightmarish, because 2-3° warming isn't extreme enough to break down society, when people will have decades to adapt.
> How do you know all that will happen in your second paragraph?
We have barely reached 1.5° C and people are already dying by the thousands, people are already fleeing by thousands more—and people are already not accepted as refugees. There are entire areas which are become more and more inhospitably which are experiencing disproportionately more famines, coups, and even wars (namely the Sahel region in Africa).
Yes I am a climate doomer, but I believe doomerism is the reasonable reaction to our climate reality.
> The 4° C scenario is generally regarded as unrealistic
Why? It sounds like you might mean that, by about +2 °C (~double today's avg warming) we start to notice the impacts a little too acutely and take more action, am I reading that right?
4° C is an extrapolation from current trends. Straight up extrapolations are seldom good predictions. There are usually some feedbacks and feed forwards in a complex systems. It is not unreasonable to assume that governments will follow through with at least some of their promises and pledges, especially as the effects of the climate disaster becomes more apparent. And doubly so as new industries pop up around climate solutions with enough money to influence governments over what the dying fossil fuel industry.
That said, I'm under no disillusion that 2° C warming is not a horror scenario and that if governments actually cared about human lives they would limit warming to 1.5° I know they don't and the won't
Ah, unrealistic because it's a plain extrapolation without accounting for any behavior change or indeed feedback effects. That makes sense, thanks!
> It is not unreasonable to assume that governments will follow through with at least some of their promises and pledges
FWIW, it actually looks like we're on a path to 2.5-2.9 °C of warming with current policies, and nearly another 1°C reduction with current pledges which are indeed much less likely to fully materialise. Via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Gre... which appears to use 2021 data. The "no climate policies" scenario is shown as having the lower error margin actually above +4°C
> FWIW, it actually looks like we're on a path to 2.5-2.9 °C of warming with current policies.
This is true, I actually used 2° C as a shorthand for 2° C - 3° C. I shouldn’t have done that. I actually believe we are more likely to be closer to 3° C at the end of this century than 2° C.
How do you fix the problem for the average user of why the (eg) recipe group on their Lemmy instance is empty, and when/if they do learn that other instances recipe groups are different groups, how they properly follow them all, and why it is their favourite one suddenly disappeared because their instance defed'd from that instance because the other instance also carried trumpsfavouriterecipes?
I get and like the principles of the Fediverse but for the average user it's too fragmented, needs too much effort around discoverability, is confusing and promotes echo chambers in some ways worse than Reddit (in that your instance can simply cut off another instance it doesn't agree with - at least in Reddit you can find another sub all on the same instance that meets your echo chambers. Yes you can change instances but supposing that other instance doesn't carry a group you use heavily?)
IMO Lemmy's growth will halt once the more intrepid average user decides it's too complex, tells all their friends about it and goes back to Reddit.
People keep talking about having the option to take your content and move as though freedom was a prison.
Likewise, the fact that there is a community of instances that have made the choice to have a pleasant space, free of troll farms spewing endless abuse, and are taking that seriously, really seems to have upset a lot of people around here.
You can't get the_donald on Reddit either, because fascists make a room stink like farts, and only people who've been huffing their poopy-smelling breath can't see that. I think what's really upsetting for those of the trollish mindset is that while removing the_donald and other fascist subs was more about keeping the site running smoothly and just getting rid of a headache, the decision to lock out gab and truth.social and anyone else who tolerates it is strictly an aesthetic one; they are no longer outcast because they're a pain in the ass, they're outcast because they suck and the whole community agrees.
I knew in 2016 that it was just the start of a process of smartening, where people get more optics into the nature of the world and the Internet's place in it. Seven years on, The Smartening proceeds apace, finding ways to have nice things, even with armies of chaos and division trying to tell us to be angry, to rage incoherently at our neighbors, doing everything they can to bring bad feelings into our lives.
The platforms are done because there's no more free money for them to play with, and when the big machines that run on that money can't fill up with another funding round, things are already grim and only getting worse. The fediverse is doing alright.
I understood the previous remarks as suggesting problem isn’t strictly defederating the-underscore-Donald. It’s that defederation is an incredibly blunt tool, but one of the few tools available, and so you end up with some pretty obnoxious schisms.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used a Trump related fake example but it could be as simple as cutting off a peer because the mod is a vegan and wants to cut off meat recipes (and cuts off the best and most populated soccer community at the same time)
Has that happened, or is that just a scenario? Cause I'd be very interested to see if vegans actually can cut out meat from mainstream mastodon.
I confess that I'm vegan-adjacent, I eat meat whenever it's put in front of me but my wife is vegan so I never have meat put in front of me and I don't miss it, but if vegans can actually create a major ideological schism in the greater federation over their specific issue, I will see that as a problem and pretty much agree that the fediverse is a fail.
That said, it's a better fail than previous fails, so the way forward is not back to the platforms regardless.
But I think the vegans are going to settle for having the right to exist like everyone else, and there are definitely already lots of radical instances I'm sure. But can they make all of mastodon ban pictures burgers on a grill?
Let's find out, actually. The experiment is already in motion.
Ignoring the specific example used to make my point, my point was how do you avoid the problem? If PopularInstanceA decides to cut off PopularInstanceB for "reasons" you have fragmented a community with users on both instances going to be unhappy... yes they could all move and suddenly MarginalnstanceC becomes PopularInstanceC as it federates both A and B but users will get lost along the way, most will only tolerate this kind of instance changing crap once and even then how do you stop A cutting off C because they are federating B?
Yes I agree it's all just hypothetical but we're relying on the goodwill of probably unpaid enthusiast server owners to keep the Fediverse stable and that feels like a house of cards to me
This is the most bewildering part of every conversation I've had so far about the fediverse, and it always comes down to this idea that because it is difficult, because it is not the easy and well-funded way that has a buyout or a powertrip at the end of it, that it's somehow bound to fail where, well, so far the platforms claim to be succeeding but let's see how they do with the interest rates as they are for another few years.
Which part of Reddit - leave out Twitter, leave out Facebook, leave out Google, leave out everything else because they only make my question harder to answer; Reddit is currently the great white hope of the Platforms. The one that everyone desperately points to as a platform done right, because the alternative - a world without big corporate daddies seeing to our needs and keeping us safe at night because Alexa is listening to us breathe, a world without the possibility of chatting up a VC capitalist doing a startup and cashing out a billionaire in a couple years - is too horrible to contemplate.
So exactly which part of Reddit, with its legions of unpaid labourers and current shenanigans, is not very obviously a house of cards that is just about to collapse right before their IPO coup-de-grace?
Reddit is "relying on the goodwill of [definitely] unpaid enthusiasts," except their goal is not to foster community and offer an alternative to the platforms, their goal is to do their IPO, collect their golden parachutes, and let the whole thing fester like the untreated infection that it is.
I will place my bet on the enthusiast server owners and the willingness of their communities to take collective responsibility to make sure that we do have an actual alternative to this bullshit before I'll ever trust another platform.
And you know, we ought to know better than to question the ability of communities of enthusiasts and weirdoes to actually make something happen without a fucking VC involved. Look at GNU(/Linux), on which the entire world runs. We got this baby, and we won't need YC to make it work. I'm sure there are folks in this forum that won't like that either - if you can't monetize it, it's worthless to them, and that's why our communities keep going up in Private Equity smoke, just like Sears.
