flood warning systems are often simple networks of rain gauges or stream gauges that are triggered when rain or floodwaters exceed a certain level.
The gauges can then be used to warn those at risk of flooding, whether by text message, which may not be effective in areas with spotty cellphone service; notifications broadcast on TV and radio; or sometimes through a series of sirens.
It doesn’t seem like a basic solution should even cost nearly that much.
Sure, but this is more addressed to the people who do not intend to go vegan, but are considering replacing the red meat in their diet with other meat for ethical reasons.
the conditions of meat chickens living in cages is the reason why bird flu spread so much
There is actually a bad epidemic in wild birds recently, and there is a big risk of it transferring from them to chicken flocks when they have access to the same space.
One cow with a low quality of life imo is less ethical than a bunch of chickens with a decent quality of life, even if we consider numbers.
I guess that makes sense, if you can make an animal’s life good overall, in that situation maybe it wouldn’t be a net negative to farm more of them. Though realistically I think it’s going to be very difficult to have any confidence you’re buying such meat at the grocery (if you can even afford the stuff claiming to be more ethical) and you’d probably have to raise the animals yourself for that.
but it’s a lot easier to have free range chickens than it is to have cows doing the same.
I don’t know about that, it’s pretty difficult to keep (what I would consider) genuinely free range chickens because of predators and various other factors (the need to keep them away from wild birds because of bird flu comes to mind), and the commercial definition of free range doesn’t necessarily guarantee a good quality of life. There’s also how meat chickens are mostly all a specific type of crossbreed that is perpetually hungry, prone to cannibalism and health problems, and not meant to live longer than a few months.
But even if you could say that the average chicken raised for meat is better off than the average cow raised for meat, there’s still how you need vastly more of them for the same amount of meat, so if their lives are still a net negative and you’re weighing it by sum of individual experiences, it could be considered worse from a utilitarian perspective because of the numbers.
I personally don’t eat red meat, and I agree it’s worse for climate change, but I’ve heard the argument that meat from larger animals is more ethical, because to get the same amount of meat from smaller animals means a much larger number of them have to die, and I’m not sure how to weigh that against the climate, assuming that someone isn’t going to give up meat entirely.
Could this be done such that a person cannot prove that they voted a certain way (the source of the problems people mention, like vote selling becoming viable)?
Well what I’m seeing in this thread is two metrics, BLS and LISEP, with the argument being that the distinction between them doesn’t matter because unemployment is right now historically low by both measures (I don’t really know the difference between them myself, or whether these are the only meaningful ways to measure it). And you’re reiterating that there exists some measure where it is high, but I think for that to be a convincing counterargument you would need to say more about what that measure is, show that unemployment is high by that measure, and make an argument why that specific way of measuring things is more relevant than the other ones.
The comments you’re responding to are not making that kind of general argument though, they are only talking about whether a specific claim makes sense. If it doesn’t make sense, that doesn’t necessarily mean our economic system is working for us, maybe it means that whatever problems exist would be better quantified in a different way.
When I open my task manager I see flatpak-session-helper near the top of the list for ram usage and am suspicious
Literally billions of instances of censorship every year, the DMCA is such an awful law
I think a lot of the time “beliefs” are more about social signaling than actual worldview. Most people aren’t going to do anything to go against the grain for the sake of their beliefs, so one belief or another isn’t going to make a difference for anything that matters.
Your other comments in this thread seem to contradict that a little, at least the idea that these harms or benefits would be visible enough to you to evaluate, since you claim to have switched positions when they started becoming more visible and something you would have had to engage with directly. For software in particular, you empower your users to do whatever they happen to choose to do with it.
Which isn’t to say you’re doing the wrong thing. I just see the economy as a whole as an inherently cannibalistic system we have little choice but to be a contributing part of one way or another, with the main form of meaningful available agency being to minimize involvement rather than choosing how to be involved.
I feel like that has got to be pretty difficult unless you include jobs where you are personally isolated from and ignorant of the harmful things the company you contribute to is doing
What about unjustly light sentences though? Like a sex criminal who is let off easy because he’s white, has rich parents and was on track to get a high paying career?
Yes, but the opposite way you might be thinking since mass death from war and other catastrophe is strongly correlated with very high birth rates. We’re on track for the global population to stabilize around 10 billion right now, but if billions die in a world war we will probably go exponential again for a long time.
For starting a fire, look for bits of birch bark on the ground, it is extremely flammable and is much better tinder than leaves.
You can also take off your shoe and use that
I would like that to be true, but I don’t think the numbers really support it, at least for the approval rating:
Last updated on July 2nd 2025
He was 6th lowest approved president ever for his first term, but that was with an approval rating of 34%, which is lower than it is currently. Bottom 3 are Truman, Nixon, and Bush, with 22,24,25% respectively.
More nuance than you normally see in these kinds of screenshots
Even then I don’t see why something like this wouldn’t work. If not, you could spend 100x more money and still be nowhere close to a million.