No the other way around. Smoking hits you very fast, almost instantly because it’s very fine particles that pass into the bloodstream. Vaping is much slower because it’s vaporized droplets that get absorbed slowly through mucus membrane, and it’s less effective (like 50% effective after 30 min vs. 100% after 5 min). Nicotine salt e-liquid “improves” that a bit to hit faster, to help people stop smoking. You can find articles and papers on this.
Congratulations! You’re among the first 1000 minds I liberated! Please sign up here for more updates and exciting discounts! :D
If you distribute the emissions on all the consumers, the concert goers then it’s probably negligible. And their fault. So we should attack people who go to music concerts. But really we should attack celebrity culture. Much less funny meme though
Ironically I find myself in a similar, but much much worse discussion today (yes of course it’s hexbear).
This meme has been brought to you by FOX news and the fossil fuel lobby.
I really prefer the Israeli and the USA disinformation campaigns /s
Fucking neoliberals… decades of neoliberal economic policy, imperialism and media conglomeration allowed this fertile ground in the first place.
The typological fallacy fallacy.
You’re right, if it was an intelligence service they’d want the service to continue while they have a backdoor.
Yeah basically the problem is the apps because mobile browser / mobile websites are less usable than desktop browser. I use NewPipe / PipePipe for youtube on android, hopefully it’ll keep working. Right now I don’t have any ads on android. But I’m only using very few apps. Thankfully the android ecosystem seems to be improving.
Is it? Maybe. I managed to install the apps I need from f-droid and use firefox but it felt more difficult than on PC - where you just need to install an adblocker in your browser.
Hillarious! Just for a few seconds I wondered if this was real!
Don’t worry, probably they are going to jail for protesting. Soon we won’t have any more rabble disturbing the blissful zen of self extinction.
Under a new law, the protesters risk up to six months of jail time.
I’m living mostly ad-free due to adblockers everywhere (except android) but most people don’t know, can’t do it or are brainwashed to think it’s amoral to block ads. If more people would catch on adblocking would be made illegal. And either way my personal choice doesn’t change what content is produced and how society is influenced. Personal responsibility doesn’t solve this just as it doesn’t climate change. Because advertising clearly does work.
Snow could be melted by heating the solar panel. Unless it’s snowing constantly this could still be net positive over multiple days. This would mostly be useful for grid storage / house storage. But I could imagine an EV doing this too - a few solar panels to heat up the batteries each morning to improve efficiency. Or if it’s plugged in. It should be relatively easy and cheap to negate the problems of low temperature with 1 kW of PV for 250€, a micro controller and a temperature sensor and some resistance wire.
Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.
My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.
Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.
Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.
Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).
How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?
You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society. I believe in large part this is due to advertising.
PS: There is a film called “Branded (2012)” about the “horrors of advertising”.
Can’t you put a solar panel on top and heat the batteries to keep them above 0°? I guess the problem is that you want the opposite of thermal insulation for batteries when they are working, but insulate them when it’s too cold.
She looks subtly different
Constantly being brainwashed to consume is one of the great evils of our time. Consumerism is bad for mental health and the environment. But advertising also creates many biases in content creation.
When was the last time you heard anything about bad effects of advertising? Not just superficial “stupid ad” but as a massive corrosive force on society? That is how much freedom of speech we have.
So what is the point of acquiring them if they just dismantle the company? Seems stupid unless it’s funded by the CIA or something.
You mean we should just cut emissions and not try to remove CO2? Or am I missing something in the article?
I don’t think we can do enough off that list to make enough difference. And we’re already hitting positive feedback cycles so we need some way to remove CO2. I doubt either of those things will happen, but theoretically we need both now.