Agreed. The general trend of switching to natural gas has led to the release of a lot of methane, which is notorious for leaking during drilling, transport, and storage.

This is much worse than carbon dioxide and has been going on for decades. Methane will continue to rise within the atmosphere and cause further warming for decades even if we stopped releasing it today.

My issue was with that type of sarcasm, which is why I responded with a similarly dismissive sarcastic remark.

Dismissing people’s complaints by saying “you can go use something else/move someplace else” is unhelpful and used to negate their complaints without ever having to address their source.

I doubt many people see an anonymous counter as a huge problem itself, I don’t. The point is that this is a first step in a direction we don’t want to see the software go. If you don’t push back against these things from the moment they show up, they will continue to slowly inch in that direction until you end up in a nightmare like Chrome or Edge.

Seems like a good idea except for how often these states already force their own spyware and backdoors onto projects. Ideally, the state would fund it, but given their history, I’d prefer costs were covered by user donations as the interests of the users are the only interests I trust. We are the only group that is truly independent of competing interests.

Crowd funding and donations obviously have their own drawbacks. Maybe we can find a work around to avoid the privacy violations of states in the future, but I don’t have a simple answer for how to accomplish this. The way the FOSS community operates is currently the best alternative I’ve seen, but I’m sure it’s not always lucrative for developers. People need to be compensated for their labor and our current systems tend to put development interests at odds with user interests.

While we’re at it, we should add Microsoft to the antitrust case…again.

Typical. You post a reasonable response and get a bunch of ad-pilled shit takes:

“But will you eat shit if I put a little chocolate on it?”

“If you don’t eat shit, you don’t deserve to interact with the internet eat.”

“Maybe if you pay them a little money, they’ll stop trying to serve you shit?”

Advertisers contribute nothing of value to our society and contribute little of value to even the companies they serve. Let them burn. Every action they take to “serve” me ads will be met with an equal counteraction.

We deserve to live a life without being constantly bombarded with messages telling us to buy, buy, buy! This significantly decreases our quality of life and is endemic within our entire society. What the hell are all of you who defend advertisers thinking?

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It definitely won’t be the first time.

“Why don’t you just move to another country if you don’t like it here?”

“I say this as a true patriot.”

There’s your issue.

Got it figured out, thanks!

A shit, my bad. I didn’t scroll far enough, thank you!

Still getting a mostly blank page. Similar to what I tried earlier with archive.ph and archive.today.

Is it just me getting no text content?

Archive.ph and removepaywalls.com aren’t working. Does anyone have a way around the WaPo paywall?

I have a boss who will remote to a meeting that takes place right outside his office, then come in-person to the next meeting that immediately follows in the same room. People like the flexibility.

The article is listed on ResearchGate.

For anyone looking for an alternative to Sci-Hub (the GOAT), you can make a free account on RG and send a request to the authors for a copy of their paper (about two clicks to perform).

Most researchers will send you a copy within a day, maybe two. If you copy the title or the DOI link into a search with “ResearchGate” it usually shows up in most search engines.

I think we have more pressing issues in certain airplanes at the moment, but that’s a good point.

For sure. It can be useful for others, even if the person you’re interacting with has a rock for a brain.

Literally the only answer this one deserved.

…did you read anything any of us have given you?

Lol, you know liberals choose not to read. I’d poke fun by saying they can’t read, but that would be giving them too much credit.

I believe RevLeft recently had guests on and they mentioned even basic medical supplies such as ibuprofen were hard to come by. Maybe it would be possible to bring some of these types of supplies too?

Fundamentally naive take.

Do you want a list of better sources in English, because I feel like you are asking for one. I’m too tired to be the one to give them now, but maybe later or someone else will provide some for me?

The NYT directly contributed to the US invasion of Iraq based on VERIFIABLY FALSE information. Despite this egregious lack of journalistic integrity also known as “doing your fucking job”, they are still held up as a relatively unbiased and reliable source for reporting on war and geopolitical issues that relate to wars that the US elite has interests in.

No. This is your own bias and you have not looked at them critically. You want to trust them and I get it, I even AGREE with you that they do have some use as a news source on other topics, but you’re also playing into the very game they are playing with our heads.

The NYT has had troubling biases that have had a material effect on our world since at least the 1970s.

Just a few to follow if you want alternatives. Note that ALL sources have a bias. It is unavoidable. Even scientists writing in scientific journals. It’s not about their bias so much as being able to recognize their bias and see how it affects their reporting. This is how openly biased media can be a breath of fresh air in comparison to the “unbiased” media.

• Geopolitical Economy Report
• Novara Media
• FAIR.org (a media watchdog)
• Glenn Greenwald (I don’t even particularly like him and he’s had a bit of a bias in favor of Israel, but he still does good work).

Even if they do, will people treat it differently? It’s hard to differentiate those things in your head even when conscious of the difference. The insidious nature of your own bias towards trusting or not trusting what you read from them is why opens are effective at shifting narratives and opinions.

If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.