But the reason why most of that food is thrown away is not lack of refrigeration, cheaper refrigeration will not solve that problem.

I think “cheaper refrigerators” is an oversimplification. People without access to a functional refrigerator often have bigger problems than a mere absence of a single appliance.

But the energy savings is a big deal. We’re not just talking about food refrigeration but AC, which is a much bigger deal especially as we suffer a warning planet

We honestly need to end the myth that Wikipedia is some impenetrable white tower.

It’s a perpetual two-edged conversation. On the one end, you’ve got reactionaries doggedly insisting the existence of Wikipedia is an attack on their personal reputations and a warehouse for far-left ultra-communist radical propaganda. On the other, you’ve got a very naked western bias to articles (thanks to a preponderance of western editors) and this creeping pay-to-play model of participation that enthusiasts and supporters simply refuse to acknowledge.

The utility of the site is such that nobody is really excited about ignoring it and replacing it is a herculean effort even would-be trillionaires haven’t managed. So the fight continues to be over degrees of control in editing existing articles and publishing new ones.

It isn’t a White Tower, but Wikipedia has become - like it or not - a system of record with an implicit amount of reflexive trust that hundreds of millions of people have learned to adopt. You can’t cynically reject its contents any more than you can naively accept them.

You think people break into the Louvre but can’t touch Wikipedia?

I think there are enough copies of the Mona Lisa such that we wouldn’t need to question what it looks like if the original was stolen.

In the same way, there are so many backups and mirrors and third-party logs of Wikipedia that we can very clearly see what is being changed and by whom. It is valuable in large part because it is so easily auditable. That’s not to say its infallible, but you can at least point to what you disagree with and challenge it piecemeal. This isn’t like a Grok AI or Conservapedia, where the preponderance is a black box of bullshit.

That’s what the “Talk” section functionally does. People can (and do) check it when an article has lots of frequent heavy editing. And a lot of these edits do get rolled back as they’re exposed, as Wikipedia admins are reasonably good at keeping the propaganda generically pro-western rather than nakedly for-profit or regionally partisan.

At the same time, Wales is a self-proclaimed libertarian who is constantly putting his hand out to keep the website funded and operational. I have to assume there’s a certain degree of self-dealing happening in the background just to keep the site from getting the kind of abuse suffered by Internet Archive or Anna’s Archive.

Previous civilizations didn’t have the level of technology required to “end the world” in the literal sense.

Modern civilizations don’t have that level of technology. We can make earth inhospitable to a lot of humans and a lot of mammals. But we’re living through the 6th global extinction event, not the 1st. In a million years, modern humanity will be a distant memory one way or another and life will continue to thrive.

The worst case scenario of climate change is the inverse temperature variation of the last great Ice Age. This was an event that killed billions. But it was not an event that extinguished all life. Not even an event that extinguished all human life. And that’s at the end of the century - 2100 - a year none of us were going to see under the most ideal conditions.

It would be presumptuous to believe our grandchildren would live to see “the end of the world”. To insist its happening in the next 40-60 years? Come on.

I make it to “the end of the day” seven times a week.

That’d definitely a better way to understand history. We’ll all live to see the end of our own cycle of existence. Then we’ll pass the torch.

“Every other civilization that’s fallen doesn’t count. Only my personal experience is real” is a narcissistic sentiment.

I wouldn’t even strictly call it pessimistic, as a lot of the “World is ending” attitude comes from people who have a sadistic desire to see others (particularly privileged elites) kicked out of their comfort zones. I would call it a kind of learned helplessness, as the implicit assumption of living through the End of the World is that we’re beyond the point at which you’re responsible for what comes next.

“The world will end in my lifetime” is one of the more narcissistic takes a human can express.

People on Lemmy hate when you know any amount of history

Real Inbox Zero hour, who up?

They tried to warn us.

We didn’t listen

“I smelled your burning incense and assumed you’d be into this Hindu flag”

This feels more like “Both Sides” centrism.

Any suggestion that there’s something questionable or unreliable about the American democratic process is a trick by the Republican Party to suppress liberal voter enthusiasm. And if you mention it you are helping the Republicans win. Also Russia.

If you’re still in line, stay in line. Our elections are secure. The midterms is winnable if you vote in it. Shut up and do what we tell you or you’re an enemy.

Schools with good public transit are a real blessing. I remember living off campus at UT Austin and missing more than a few classes due to the miserable bus schedule. A big chunk of that was the result of the bumper to bumper traffic through central Austin. But it’s a problem the city/state knew existed for decades and refused to address.

Commuter schools are even worse. They straight up don’t provide student housing, then get mad when you need student parking.

It’s very rational, very scientific.

It’s a simple heuristic based on an 80 year old party game. You can argue it is scientific as an empirical methodology, but it isn’t objective in analysis.

Or believed that people are rational enough to be swayed by facts and logic.

I don’t know how you get a “fact” out of the imitation game. If anything, the game exposes the subjectivity of the subject being analyzed. You can apply logic based on certain axioms, but what are the axioms upon which the definition of “thinking” (or “gender”) are built?

The former, at the very least, is a complex philosophical snarl that could have a tangible answer. The latter is a muddled interpretation of biological sex and social norms, with the social norms taking much higher precedence.

But a “pass” on either one is ultimately rooted in the savvy of the listener not the objective reality of the speakers. Talking about facts and logic in the imitation game is like talking about facts and logic in a poker game. At some point, you’re just going to have to guess based on incomplete information. That doesn’t mean a bluff is the same as a winning hand.

Hard to image a 114 year old Allen Turing not being a shameless geek for modern computer technology. Although, inter-generational attitudes among LGBTQ being what they are, I suspect we’d get a 4000 word easy in The Guardian about how the New Gays Are Doing It Wrong.

The Turing Test is innately arbitrary. “Real” AI can fail the Turing Test for a sufficiently skeptical test taker. Humans can fail the test. Meanwhile, we had very simple chat bots that passed the Turing Test as early as the 1970s.

I would say that “AI Slop” as a pejorative illustrates a sizeable portion of the public aren’t yet fooled. At the same time…

Some people are more gullible than others.

The real secret to wealth. Just have a back line into the Fed Credit Window.

Any dipshit can become a billionaire while paying the prime rate on unlimited borrowed money

Would solve a lot of problems.

I’m fully willing to believe Elon Musk will officially become a trillionaire, go on a bender, get lost, and be homeless for - like - a week.

It’s Cold War propaganda.

Literally “Animal Farm” in a single sentence.