plantteacher @ plantteacher @mander.xyz

Posts

33

Comments

68

Joined

2 yr. ago

The thread is about the psychology of acceptance of collective punishment. Nit-picking 1 of the 6 examples serves what purpose, exactly?

A punishment may or may not be in connection to a “crime”. Crime is a man-made artificial construct. When we speak of collective punishment, the punishment is applied more broadly than those doing the harm (which may more may not be a 1-to-1 mapping to “crime”, or there may even be no crime to speak of).

To answer the question, you have misunderstood the research (which came from CATO Institute). The research does not count being undocumented as a crime for the study. In fact, I should have mentioned it neglects all non-serious crimes (traffic infringements, minor theft, possession of small quantities of pot, etc). The study puts the bar at incarceration. If a crime leads to incarceration, then it is a serious crime, which is ideal for the study. Of course counting illegal immigration in that study would defeat the purpose of the study and just serve the propaganda interests of the right-wing nationalists.

It is also wrong to define all undocumented people as criminals because (for example) asylum is a legal process entitled to asylum seekers who are undocumented. The same group of advocates for collective punishment also endorse the process of converting legal immigrants into illegal immigrants by arbitrarily denying them an extension of their permit after they have been rooted in for decades (formed families, integrated into local culture, contributed to the economy, etc), uprooting them from where they were lawfully established and giving them the boot without even covering travel expenses. The unlawfullness of their status was /created/ by the pushers of collective punishment in this case. The collective punishment was a pre-cursor to this technical “crime”.

Anyway, your false claim that undocumented inherently implies crime needed correction but beyond that the discussion is irrelevent to the thesis.

That wouldn’t exactly hit the mark because a ghost community /can/ be active. The problem is that if you have:

• someCommunity@originalNode
• nodeA/someCommunity@originalNode
• nodeB/someCommunity@originalNode

You can see the local copy of nodeA/someCommunity@originalNode if you are on nodeA. But you don’t know it is orphaned and you are in a bubble. People on nodeB can see posts in nodeB/someCommunity@originalNode, but not nodeA/someCommunity@originalNode. There is no signal that you have been cut off, and that your post will only have a local audience.

We already have transparency of activity, but not transparency of scope and reach.

I would even say adding the transparency is just a start. The real bug here is that the fedi has not figured out that nodeA and nodeB need to sync with each other regardless of the parent.

Not AFAIK. We would be inventing it. From there, it’d be a tool for legal actions and leverage.

EV car buyers have a delusion that their old ICE car is removed from the planet. ICE cars are not being trashed upon replacement. They are shipped to Africa, where the avg. age of a car at the time of purchase is 21 years old.

Small aircrafts w/an ICE last forever because they are very well maintained (by law in fact). The cost of replacing an aircraft is also very high, so economic pressure also ensures a long life. The same would be true of ICE cars in your region if the economics of your region demanded it. Reguardless, unless you also plan to eliminate worldwide poverty in a couple decades, the ICE cars are not going away.

What if I can hear wi fi? How could I tell?

Wouldn’t it be bothering you if you could?

Well, I suppose not necessarily.. I hear a hum but it does not bother me because I don’t generally fixate on it. When I notice it, I then realise I’m being lazy and need to get out of bed and get my attention on something. Some people suffer, like Diane Schou, who moved to a town that didn’t trigger her electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

I suppose a test would be to enter a sound-proof room which then also has a faraday cage, and get tested. The tester would have controls for emitting sounds mostly outside the statistical hearing range, along with one to turn on a wifi AP, and some dummy switches that emit nothing. Then for you to raise your hand when you hear something. I read about someone taking a test like that, and she raised her hand whenever some electronmagnetic something was played (wi-fi iirc). It was something that was unusual and surprised the researchers. I cannot find the story on that now. Might have appeared in Wired mag.. not sure.

Indeed. We also have to consider that it has become popular¹ to boycott the US over Trump’s tariffs and US support for Israel. These boycotts would discourage the use of US tech giants, in principle.

¹ for example: !buyeuropean@feddit.uk

I appreciate the research and references.

For the greenhouse gas emissions, the electric kettle should pull ahead in the future as renewables take over

Perhaps in most regions outside of populist-rightwing-controlled regions, that will be the case. ATM I am not in the US but still they are tearing down the nuclear power plants and building 3 new natural gas fired plants. So progress is moving backwards where I am.

Centralised gas burning would be more efficient than burning it on a domestic stove, but hard to grasp that the difference would be enough to exceed conversion and transmission losses. Worth noting that there are a couple ways to get hot water from gas:

• simple pot on stovetop
• water runs through a coil of fire-heated pipe inside an insulated box -- aka a tankless combi boiler

The 2nd option would not give boiling water, as I would not want boiling water to run through the domestic pipework, but I wonder how a small tankless gas-fired tea water appliance might do as far as increasing the gas efficiency, should it be invented.

In any case, if electric-fueled heat were generally efficient, I would expect the gas-fired combi boilers to be much less popular. Though note as well that economy is not closely tied to efficiency. Natural gas cost per kWh is much cheaper in my area than electric cost per kWh (by a factor of 2 I think).

I highly doubt that gas stove is more efficient that anything other than a wood fire.

We’re talking from energy source to water, not wall to water. Sure, if you neglect everything that gets the energy to your wall, then electric is more efficient.

What do you mean you have to watch the temp control? Obviously they shut off at the temp you set

There are 3 varieties of electric kettles:

• on/off, no control
• temp guage (analog or digital), no setting
• configurable so you can set the temp which is then targetted

BTW, your link is unreachable to me. (Cloudflare strikes again)

Gas has a conversion efficiency of 100% but not all of it every the kettle. That leads to efficiencies lower than the electric ones.

Yes but you’re only talking wall to water. From energy source to water gas is the most efficient because it does not have the lossiness of generation and transmission that electric does.

With good induction it is also faster than every other method so that would be my choice if I had an induction cooker.

You’re purely talking boil times. But the end game is brewed tea, in which case it cannot be faster because after boiling the water you still need ~1—3 min to brew it. That’s why the inline heating elements in dispensors are interesting. It starts brewing immediately so the 1m50s it takes to boil all the water can be neglected.

I struggle to believe water pooled up enough to carry stuff. Condensation is possible perhaps to the extent of having some invisible amount of sweat. Unless there were puddles that formed and evaporated before I saw it. Though it’s a short fridge. The top of it is at eye level so I see the top every day.

Here’s another pic:

It does not wipe off with a rag. I have some proprietary rust stain removal liquid, which I think is intended for when rust gets on fabric. But I guess I’ll try it on these spots. Otherwise I’m left with some kind of abrasive approach.

Might want to crosspost to !scicomm@mander.xyz, just to inject some life into that community.

And support Russia like a muppet? Fuck off you muppet.

I wonder if that’s a boiling frog scenario. I’m always tempted to keep increasing the heat in hot tubs after adjusting to temp. I wonder if your sister gradually moved closer as she got acclaimated to the temp.

i don’t have a microwave oven but I appreciate the suggestion.

I’m considering that as well and got some tips from here:

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2024/12/how-to-build-an-electrically-heated-table/

So far my lower body is fine but in case it gets colder I have been keeping an eye out for excess waste roofing insulation in my area, which I would use for an under desk rig.

When you say your clothing becomes the chimney, that makes me wonder if I should surround myself in a insulated structure, unlike the link above where they seem to let heat escape around the legs.

Thanks for the suggestion. That seems ideal because it’s directional. I could probably mount it to heat the keyboard area without adding any heat to the laptop. I’ll try to find a smaller 250 watt one so I can just heat the keyboard area.

I appreciate the tip. It’s probably around 7°C in my office where I have so far this winter fended off the urge to turn on the heat. I can see vapor when exhaling. I am bundled up except the fingers (which I leave naked to operate a keyboard). Presumably it’s normal to have cold fingers in this situation. It’s tolerable as well but I was looking for a comfort upgrade without heating the room.

(edit) I think drinking a beer helps. They call it a “beer jacket” (the effect of alcohol making you /feel/ warmer despite the fact that alcohol technically lowers the core body temp). It’s like putting on an imaginary jacket. Some drinkers go to the bar without a jacket because they plan to eventually wear a beer jacket.

For £3 that’s certainly worth trying. I guess I would not find those locally but they look simple enough to make.

I just downloaded the manual and skimmed through pages of safety info. This was the only relevant statement about that:

“Limit the length of use and check the skin's reaction.”
“Overly prolonged radiation may lead to the skin being burned.”

Since they don’t mention a duration of exposure, I get the impression this is just pointing out the obvious for liability purposes in case someone does something foolish.

The 15 min seems to be more about protecting the device itself from over-heating. Which I suppose means it’s not well designed.. overly fragile. And I guess the lack of fan would enable the device itself to take on lots of heat. (edit: sorry, just read that it has a fan.. though it could be fragile nonetheless)

update: I also see that the bulb lasts 2000 hours. I’ve seen 250 watt bulbs claimed to last 6000 hours for like ~$20. So I guess this thing is garbage.