[-] thbb@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Si je comprends bien ce charabia, c'est juste une correction des attentes trop fortes des mois précédents.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Not really. We also have deductive capabilities (aka "system 2") that enable us to ensure some level of proof over our statements.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

And bankrupt and dispossess the lender if a disaster happens to their newly acquired home?

[-] thbb@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Renewables will inevitably become cheaper than fossil fuels, as the resource dwindles. The problem is how to make energy abundant enough to satisfy our current needs and those of the rest of the world, who expects to reach our standards of living?

(A: it's not possible, nuclear can help, but only for a while, perhaps enough time for the demographic transition to complete)

[-] thbb@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In general, the price of a good in a competitive market is directly tied to its energy cost (either manual or machine labor), which is itself tied to its carbon footprint. If something is more expensive, it is very likely that its production emitted more GHG, or that you're getting scammed.

As an exemple, beef is more expensive than chicken, which is itself more expensive than vegetables.

That's why the best personal action to save on GHG emissions is still to become poorer/reduce your material comfort. Compensate with richer interactions with others and a sense of community.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, eating industrial food over organic:

First because, per calorie produced, organic farming emits 12 to 40% more green house gases.
(Depending on the study).
Second, because you'll be less healthy and die sooner.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Quand je fais mon bilan CO2 sur le site de l'ADEME, qu'on est sensé arriver à 2t eqco2/personne/an, alors que les services publics prennent 1,4 t, et que le simple fait de respirer émet 350kg/an (CO2 comptabilisé dans la nourriture qu'on consomme): oui, on a besoin de plus que de l'énergie décarbonée, il a falloir couper là où ça fait mal...

[-] thbb@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Voilà un article qui mérite d'être lu. Et me donne envie de relancer mon site perso, pur HTML avec juste un peu de CSS, créé en 1993 et plus mis a jour depuis 2015.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Safety first: keep a memorable and easy to guess password, such as "password123"!

[-] thbb@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Très bien. Au passage stat personnelle : depuis un mois que je m'y suis mis, environ 50% de mon activité Reddit est passée a kbin.social et Jerboa.

Bravos @Camus pour son animation des forums qui facilite grandement la migration.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Stupidly click baity title. The only corporation that does not pollute is the one that doesn't produce anything. Sure, regulations such as carbon taxes are necessary to contain negative externalities, but if there's a demand for cheap products there will be a lowest bidder that will take all market share.

Lowering our consumption is unfortunately the way to make those companies pollute less.

[-] thbb@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Le studio de 1975 représente 69 smics mensuels de l'époque (smic de 1975 en euros courants=192euros).
Transposé à aujourd'hui, 69 smics mensuels nous donne un pouvoir d'achat immobilier de 118k euros.

Certes pas assez pour un studio Parisien, mais suffisant pour la proche couronne Est. Comme le 19eme à l'époque était un quartier pas trop huppé, dans le fond la différence avec les prix d'aujourd'hui n'est pas si flagrante. Et le studio d'aujourd'hui aux normes sera moins cher à chauffer et nettement plus confortable.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

thbb

joined 1 year ago