embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist

  • 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • They don’t just look like diamond; chemically they’re extremely similar, too. Diamond is just a bunch of carbon atoms covalently bonded together into a 3D crystal, which is why they’re so incredibly hard. Moissanite is basically the same but it’s carbon and silicon atoms mixed together. Silicon has the same number of valence electrons, so it can function similarly chemically as carbon, hence why it works. Thus, moissanite is also extremely hard and refracts light in beautiful ways, too, except imo even more beautifully. Instead of a colorless luster, it’s a subtle rainbow luster to moissanite.

    Source: I got my fiancée a moissanite ring, and it’s lovely. And because it’s lab-made, I got her blue moissanite (the coloring is just from adding certain impurities) that matches our cat’s eyes perfectly. It’s way more unique, cheaper, and more ethical than diamond, but doesn’t sacrifice on quality one bit.


  • This is exactly what I don’t understand about people who want peace in Ukraine as soon as possible and at all costs: capitulation for the sake of short-term peace endangers long-term peace.

    If we globally set the precedent that you can invade whomever you want and win just because you have nukes, that makes for a vastly more dangerous world. Every country with nukes will suddenly be more willing to go all imperialist, and all the countries without nukes will want to have them as a guarantee against invasion. And I don’t know about y’all, but a world with way more nukes in way more hands is way more dangerous.

    Plus, Putin has shown he’ll keep on invading neighbors so long as he can get away with it. Delivering a crushing defeat to Russia and specifically Putin is the only way to achieve a more lasting peace.



  • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I mean, the whole point of the fediverse is self-moderating. Each instance is allowed and encouraged to operate how it pleases, so instances that don’t tolerate hate speech, brigading, Nazis, and tankies are, imo, justified in removing such content as well as defederating from instances ripe with those issues. Likewise, instances that are more permissive of those kinds of things are free to defederate (or not) with whomever they please. If people are unhappy with how their local instance has acted, they can just migrate to another instance. This “drama” is just the fediverse working as it is supposed to.


  • Yeah, I get the same thing as you. What I’ve done so far is I made a few communities here and am trying to fairly reliability populate them with content. Some of those communities are niche and I feel like I’m posting into the void sometimes, but occasionally I’ve gotten someone else actually posting some content in them. It does definitely take some commitment to bootstrap a new community, as people just won’t start posting on their own there until there’s a critical mass. So you just gotta take the hit, post into the void a while, slowly increase that subscribe count, until finally others start to join in.

    It’s easiest with communities focused around memes or links, but I think it’ll take more effort with more niche hobby or technical communities, e.g., for programming languages or niche hobbies.


  • I might even go so far as plant a few policies in their heads. “We are in a climate emergency, and we should address it immediately with policies such as carbon tax-and-dividend, ending subsidies for harmful industries such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture, investing in both established and promising renewable energy sources such as solar and wind and tidal and geothermal, reducing our dependence on cars with more electrified public transport and denser urban design, and encouraging better urban land use patterns with land value taxes.” One sentence = one thought, right?

    Knowing humans, if we didn’t use this magical power to guide them to good solutions, a good number of us would conclude, “That’s it, we need to nuke China and India to save the Earth!”




  • Our cities would be compact, walkable, jam-packed with quality transit, and nearly car-free. Cargo would be transported with cargo ebikes, barges along rivers and canals, local freight rail, and cargo trams. People would move by foot and bike and trams and metro and high-speed rail.

    The surrounding countryside would be home to ecological, sustainable smallholder agriculture, preferably with plenty of technology for efficient precision agriculture. Instead of massive monocultures of corn, we’d have diverse polycultures of dozens of different crops, both annuals and perennials.

    Nature would be abundant, protected, and rewilded. We would remove most roads into wild areas and replace with trains and velomobile trails, which would be much lower impact on wild habitats. Every city would have easy, rapid transit access to natural areas by rail, so anyone can go hiking or exploring or whatever they like.

    Our economy would be centered around productivity, not rent-seeking and speculation. We would use policy to reduce barriers to entry to create highly competitive markets. We would heavily tax externalities like carbon emissions and fertilizer runoff and PFAS contamination.

    We would tax people on what they take, not what they make. Income taxes? Nah, you did the labor; that value should belong to you. Carbon emissions? That materially harms others so you should pay tax on that. Hoarding valuable god-given land? You didn’t make it, so you should pay taxes on the land you deprive from the rest of humanity.

    Our democracy would be reformed with a much better voting system like mixed-member proportional representation (MMPR) or single transferrable vote (STV), so we could have healthy multiparty systems.

    Our society would publicly invest more in research and development, open-source projects, infrastructure, and anything else that generates positive externalities. You rewilded 100 acres of native grassland? Society should pay you for your valuable labor.

    The balance of power between labor and employers would be balanced. A citizen’s dividend or universal basic income, subsidies on positive externalities (like rewilding), and the economic general growth spurred by elimination of rent-seeking would allow for an empowered working class that could capture its own productivity gains, demand better pay, and demand shorter hours. Much like how the professional class can demand good pay and good working conditions currently.

    In short, the economy would be centered around Georgist principles, environment and agriculture around permaculture, and democracy around technocratic and representative democracy. A shared, sustainable prosperity for all.