The plural of Linux is Linus.
I'm not sure why people use anything other than Windows Defender. It literally shares signature databases with most of the large AVs, it doesn't have any anti-features or isn't itself malware/adware/spyware like commercial AVs, it's tightly integrated but also easy to turn on or off (ever tried to uninstall an AV?), and no commercial AV is going to catch anything Windows Defender won't. It's also free and has no need to make money as a product in itself, and so there's no motivation for bad behavior.
The only features some commercial AVs have that Windows Defender doesn't are things like DNS blocking or browser addons (which there are plenty of non-commercial/profit-motive-driven options for: uBlock origin, pi-hole/adguard home, etc).
How much rare-earth metal is mined ethically?
Just because mining may not currently be done ethically doesn't mean it can't be. The whole system needs to be upturned, not just moving away from gasoline, but making sure every step of the supply chain is ethical and environmentaly sound.
How much of it is controlled by “evil” empires (China, Russia)?
See above.
How can hydrogen or electric vehicles be made cheap enough to be sold as non-luxury vehicles?
Several ways. One way, an approach being taken in the USA, is subsidies both to manufacturers and buyers to encourage buying greener vehicles. Also the assumption that production costs will never change--will forever remain high--is nonsense: technological advancements increase efficiency and decrease cost, amortized costs become paid off, and international competition between manufacturers all help keep prices low.
The fact of the matter that is, until non-evil solutions are actually designed, switching from petroleum fuel to biofuel shouldn’t be overlooked. Ignoring biofuel in favor of non-solutions like electric and hydrogen vehicles
You can pretend the solutions that are materially in front of you don't exist, but they do. You act as if they're pies in the sky, or undiscovered future technology. They're neither. They exist, materially, in the real world and are in use now. And they can only get better (more efficient, cheaper, more ethical, etc).
We’ll just keep burning oil instead of much cleaner biofuels in the meantime.
Here's the problem with your reasoning: if we say "let's move to biofuels", you're just going to provide reason to keep producing ICEs. As long as ICEs are being produced, purchased, and used, there is inherently less demand for alternatives. People are also not going to buy better solutions if they've recently purchased an ICE vehicle.
As I said earlier, the whole system needs to be upturned. There is no reason every human needs their own car; there is no reason people need to drive an hour each way to work, or half an hour each way to a shop, all the while having a single person in the car. Your concern of overpriced alternatives is not an issue when the cost is consolidated into, say, a slightly more expensive (up-front) bus. People need to walk, bike, and take public transport more. More and better public transportation needs to be designed and implemented. Cities need to be designed to make having a car not only less necessary, but less desirable.
find evidence
lol
We’ve been over this
No, we haven't. For someone so hellbent on pretending they're calling out bad-faith arguments, you're falling in to one now: asking for sources is not always sealioning. If someone is spewing bold claims, sometimes in sequence in an effort to combine them to come to conclusions that are questionable by nature of not having a grounding in fact, without providing evidence, is that not a problem? Seemingly, you're saying the problem only comes about from someone who responds and asks for a source. Making bold claims should require you to provide evidence; asking for evidence of bold claims is not the problem.
At this point, I really shouldn't bother talking to you anymore. You've made it very clear you are not actually here in good faith (your version of good faith is playing games, not to have real discussion). I'm offended by your approach, and haven't been driven to meaningful thought by your comments.
You will always have racist cops and neighbors and teachers. That is not systemic.
If the system does not prevent, stop, or punish the racist constituent actors (cops, neighbors, teachers), is it not racist? Is it not systemic racism to not stop individual acts of racism, especially when they're performed by agents of the state (e.g., cops, lawmakers, judges, teachers)? Just because it's not a top-down demand by the state of "you, agent of the state, must act racist" does not mean it's not systemic racism.
That is just shitty people.
There is no such thing as a system as such. It's just people. If the members are racist, and their collective doesn't do anything to address (or even occasionally rewards) that behavior, the system is racist.
Yeah I had them blocked for a bit over a day, but they're so prolific that I keep seeing other comments responding to theirs (without the ability to see theirs) which confuses me even more while reading my feed.
And this is just a personal thing, but I’ll often get more involved with arguments than with learning when my brain is spent from work. It’s easy (for me) to point out propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and yes to call people names. It takes more mental effort to learn or teach.
So you're here to play a game. To play whack-a-mole. I find that to be a disturbing approach to interacting with humans. I know I'm idealistic, but for anyone who (like me) is attempting to have real human-to-human conversation, someone coming in with the intent to just shout "fallacy!", "propaganda!", "wrong!" and play a game is extremely offensive.
For us (democrats, and US leftists in general), ignoring that fact got us Trump in 2016, and I don’t want to make that mistake again.
You have contradicted yourself here with another of your comments. In another comment you said
How often have you managed to convince someone of something by arguing with them on the internet? Or been convinced of something yourself? It’s quite rare.
And now you're saying you have a duty to convince others to change their mind by arguing with them on the internet. So is honest argumentation effective or isn't it?
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the “good faith” arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn’t so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda.
The ratio of truly state-funded actors to genuine human participation is nowhere near what you're implying. If you think it is as bad as you say, you should be able to prove that comment. Just because someone holds different opinions than you doesn't mean they're being paid to do so (if only that were true!).
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one.
Mentioning China where it truly is irrelevant is weird; mentioning China when it is relevant, but just because you don't think it is, isn't weird. If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then "superlative" praise of it is not superlative at all; that's like saying praise for the the #1 gold medal olympian is superlative--it's not, they're literally at the top.
Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they’re not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters.
You have a very active imagination. This is a satement about two different countries, so you have twice as much opportunity to find evidence that (at least one side of) what you're saying is true. Can you provide evidence that this isn't just your imagination?
The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
Again, you present this as if it's obviously true. It's not.
If you assume everyone is operating in bad faith and is a paid actor, why participate at all? You're not saving the world by fighting against an imagined state-funded actor foe. You're feeding on (imagined) outrage.
I can't tell if they're implying that the use of the word "predicted" in the article's title is not accurate given the body of the article, which I somewhat agree with, or if they're implying that "predicted" is the wrong tense of the word considering the war hasn't started, or some other reading. That's why I asked them. I'd rather not jump to conclusions.
Yeah, that’s outside of my federation account.
I am so confused at your comments here. It's a webpage. You can point your browser to (or click the link:) https://lemmy.ml. You can do it on your computer, on your phone, on your refrigerator. It's a website. Just like https://youtube.com is a website. I don't know why you're even mentioning kbin here, it would be like saying you can't view facebook because you're logged in to kbin.
I understand the intent of the rule, but I’ve seen communities who require “only respectful discourse” get swamped by sealions and bad-faith “just asking questions” types with dogwhistles and veiled references. In my opinion, sometimes namecalling and insulting is a necessary counter to someone spreading a poisonous bad-faith idea
The presence of name calling and insults is always a problem. The absence of name calling and insults does not guarantee there is no problem. Moderation is still necessary even with "only disrespectful discourse" rules; any effective moderation needs to know how to moderate as well: moderators need to know how to spot and resolve types of detractive content that aren't simply name calling.
Name calling and insults are also not a productive way to address what you consider bad-faith conversation. You should attack an idea and not the person. There are already other rules in place to help address when the idea itself is harmful: there is a rule against bigotry, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and the like; there is a rule about knowingly spreading false information. I would also stipulate (and this is personal speculation but I feel it to be an accurate view): most people who are "spreading propaganda" are not doing it with the knowledge that what they're saying is propaganda and with the intent to spread propaganda; most probably believe what they say to be true for various reasons including their media exposure, the political climate in their interpersonal interactions and their community and country, their parental influence on their beliefs, etc. If you look at it from that point of view, what good is insulting someone who isn't actually acting with malice? They're going to be less likely to reevaluate their beliefs and look at what you're saying objectively if you're spewing emotionally charged personally attacks at them, even if you are mixing in valid logic and evidence. And you're hopefully not here purely to argue and throw insult; hopefully at least part of you wants to learn and help others learn. If that's even part of what's driving your participation, wouldn't you want to do so in a manner that's more productive to everyone involved? So, in my opinion: if they're not acting with malice, insulting them does nothing good; if they are active with malice, report them and if there's proper moderation it'll be removed.
Absolutely. Compared to gasoline, it might be better. And if there were literally no other alternatives for powering engines, it could be acceptable. But there's no point in taking "the lesser of two evils" when non-evil solutions do exist.
And, as with any speculation, just because something is possible does not guarantee it is happening. As with any speculation, it helps to try to back up your claims.