iād probably pick
- cartoon tv series canāt have more than 3 seasons
- avocados should have most subsidies of any food
- electron apps are now illegal
- normal tv series canāt have more than 5 seasons
- protruding doorsteps are now illegal
You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
- Open ended
- Not offensive
- Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
- not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)
itās welcome here!
- 0 users online
- 18 users / day
- 78 users / week
- 204 users / month
- 529 users / 6 months
- 8 subscribers
- 888 Posts
- 10.2K Comments
- Modlog
donāt know if this is minor, but
This makes me think about that banksy artwork that says youāre allowed to dispose as you wish of any ad youāre shown in public spaces
Art would be cool, but just as distracting if you ask me. Iām more of a fan of billboard prohibition, like what Alaska has (https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Prohibition_of_Billboards,Measure_5(1998))
all very good suggestions, but why tube amps though š¤
They waste energy and resources and have bad sound quality and are somehow still sold as āhifiā. Somehow that bothers me, itās like selling steam powered trains to someone who already has an overhead line fed with green energy on his train tracks.
Edit: Thinking of it, I forgot vinyl records. They are even worse, they arenāt just outdated, bad sound quality and wasteful, they are also toxic.
You could argue that for hifi but when amplificating instruments itās exactly the distorsion produced by those lamp thatās looked for and hard to reproduce with transistors.
Yeah, of course you can use it creatively for distortion and saturation, but you can also do this with semiconductors or DSP and if you are such a snob that you really need that specific sound you can just pay the tax :D
The snob tax !
Or, crazy idea (surely), a rich tax that actually brings them down to the level of people they think theyāre superior to? Iām not talking about ā50% on your incomeā and some capital gains or something, Iām talking redistributing the vast majority of their wealth until theyāre even with the rest of the citizens. Hmmā¦
That wouldnāt be obscure or minor. My tax isnāt meant to target the rich, but the stupid. (and guitarists)
No more stroads.
A company cannot have more than 200 employees in the same city.
Non-federated social networks are illegal.
How about adding a clause about āthere can be no managers nor bosses or shareholdersā? :)
Who is gonna run the company then? If you this with my team, chaos follows.
Maybe for a few days/weeks, but donāt you think sharing information and power with everyone can lead to sane consensus? Iām unaware of your specifics, but i would argue that in most productive and service branches, self-organization would lead to much better outcomes in all regards. Workers self-organization has a good track record throughout history. āAutogestion, lāencyclopĆ©die internationaleā is a good resource in french about self-organization across time and space (in ten volumes), but unfortunately i donāt know of such detailed accounts in english language.
I am just suggesting it is not for everybody. I do agree that sharing responsibility yields better results.
This should end the need for entire professional degree called MBA.
no outdoor cats. invasive species that destroys local small animal populations
100% serious: No more pushbutton crosswalks (the kind you have to press a button to get the pedestrian green light) at intersections where there is a traffic light cycle anyway (excluding those small crosswalks where the traffic light never changes unless a button is pushed) Why is it needed? Just sync the crosswalk light to the traffic light.
you can get more cars through the intersection with a button, obviously, by not wasting time for pedestrians when there are none.
No, Iām not talking about a traffic light that is completely controlled by the crosswalk button like you see in the suburbs, Iām talking about a specific design that I see everywhere where I live (Metro Vancouver, Canada): There is already a traffic light for cars, and itās on a regular cycle. If you donāt press the crosswalk button, youāll never get a crossing light. Even if you do, it waits for the next time the traffic parallel to you is running and there is no protected left, before it lets you cross (you know, like how crosswalk light works any intersection without crosswalk buttons, where the crosswalk is controlled automatically). Also, if parallel traffic is already running when you press the button, it always waits for the light to change to through traffic, then for the light to change again to parallel traffic before letting you through because the controller will not allow a crosswalk cycle that is shorter than the regular traffic cycle, even if there is plenty of time in the current cycle to let you pass (or even if the light JUST changed to parallel traffic).
In short, even with the buttons, when pedestrians can cross is still dictated by the light cycle for traffic. In fact, itās slower for pedestrians compared to a system where the crosswalks operate automatically in sync with the traffic lights. So why isnāt it just in sync with the traffic lights is beyond me?
I guess placebo buttons do exist in some places, but normally the buttons are part of a complex traffic control system that does improve overall waiting times for both pedestrians and car-drivers.
What we have are even worse than placebo buttons. They do work and youāll never get a crossing light without pressing the button, but they actively make you wait longer to cross compared to if they were automatic. The buttons, to my knowledge, do not affect the main traffic light timings at all (I havenāt times it with a stopwatch or anything, but I cross a few of the same intersections very often and have never perceived a timing difference between button press and no button press).
I know in my neighborhood that at similar intersections, the traffic light switches fairly quickly if there are no pedestrians, but if you press the pedestrian button it stays green longer so pedestrians of all ages have enough time to get across.
In the United States, I would require spanish language education alongside english from 1st grade through 12th.
Edit: If you downvoted this, tell us why, you coward.
TBH choosing which second language to learn for the students isnāt ideal. Why not just mandate that they learn any second language of their choice?
Because my goal with the law would be that at the end of primary, they know a single language really well. Spanish is the most common second language in the US.
All toilets use poo to mint a currency you can spend as legal tender. The toilets use an advanced chemical system to treat, sanitize, and combine with recycled wood pulp to create paper currency. The chemical makeup of the currency is how authenticity is proven.
It is a social safety net style welfare program.
New get rich quick schemeāDoctors hate this one weird trick: Give yourself food poisoning!
Unless you are lucky living in one of those countries that have native avocado trees (and even there the water usage if them often is a problem), buying avocados should be actively discouraged as they are typically shipped half-way around the globe to consumers.
international container shipments are actually super efficient, no? iāve heard that the last few kilometres of delivery actually cause more emissions than the entire trip they take from mexico or some other country to wherever you liveā¦
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/avocado-environment-cost-food-mexico/
https://sustainabilitymattersdaily.com/10-bizarre-facts-that-describe-the-environmental-impact-of-avocados/
And container shipping (in general, maybe not specifically for avocados) is one of the worst polluters due to running on heavy oil & also makes up for a significant portion of world-wide annual CO2 emissions.
Iām not sure about container shipping, but Iāheard the same, that even if of course one ship pollute much than one truck, the quantity they move around is so huge that efficiency is incredibly better. So sea mileage VS land mileage arenāt one the same level at all.
I agree with water consumption though, that is a huge problem from what I understand.
The average efficiency (energy/km/kg) is better, but whatās even better is to consume only locally-sourced and renewable materials :)
Itās like the trick āquestionā green capitalists have about clean energy. Sure you can always make energy cleaner, but ācleanā energy does not exist and the cleanest energy is always the energy you donāt use. Same goes for transportation.
Actually, it depends. We did an analysis in one of my university environmental science classes about if youāre living in Montreal in the winter, if you should buy produce from the subtropics (California in our analysis) or local produce. Well, local produce in Quebec is grown in greenhouses in the winter. And as it turns out, the carbon footprint to heat those things far outweighs everything else combined: including transportation. Like, you can get many times more produce shipped straight from California for the same amount of carbon emissions of a single stalk of local broccoli. The difference was so far beyond any margin of error that there was no way we could justify getting local produce no matter how much we tried (Iām pretty sure most people in our class went into it assuming local would win hands down).
The takeaway is: if itās really cold, food production isnāt efficient and you might just be better off getting non-local food from somewhere warm.
@poVoq@lemmy.ml
Did you also compare it to broccoli grown in summer and stored in a freezer?
Or for that matter, eating seasonal produce only?
The entire setup of comparing an artificially heated greenhouse in Canada seems specifically designed to make any alternative look good. How about growing produce on the north pole? I am sure the Canadian greenhouse will win against that /s
Freezer might be a viable alternative actually. Especially if you use a heat pump and use the āwasteā heat to heat buildings in the winter. Or, even with greenhouses, a ground source heat pump that stores thermal energy in the soil in the summer and extracts it in the winter could potentially also work. Heat pumps can be up to 5x more efficient than resistive electric heat.
The thing is, to my knowledge, the only fresh produce available locally in Quebec in the winter is greenhouse grown because itās literally too cold for any edible plant to grow in the fields. Broccoli isnāt special in this regard because nothing would be in season.
To be fair the assignment wasnāt really meant to actually inform people what they should do. It was meant to test our ecological impact assessment and data analysis skills that we learned over the term, so they probably did pick a relatively simple example (still with real numbers though).
Thatās a fair point: the sourceās location is not the only factor at play. Iām not familiar with your climate/environment, but i assume the native people have/had a diet tailored to their local environment, and that those greenhouses are meant to produce a capitalist āillusionā of abundance of varied/foreign crops. Iām curious if you have resources on that topic.
Also, from a more technical perspective, itās quite possible to heat greenhouses in an eco-friendly manner. The productions youāre talking about are likely non-organic and not based on permaculture techniques. There are probably permaculture approaches to cultivating in the cold climates (though iām unaware of them), but even using āconventionalā (read ācapitalistā) techniques, producing compost from plant or animal (eg. human) waste is a good heat-generating process.
So while your study holds true, the balance in favor of imported goods is likely due to the types of foods consumed and to the industrial techniques used by industry and not due to the distance crossed by the goods itself. Do you agree with this interpretation?
We had a video a while ago on /c/solarpunk of someone growing citrus fruits in the middle of winter in the northern US in such an greenhouse heated with low-grade ground heat.
So it is definitly possible, but probably doesnāt scale very well.
The real issue is that you canāt expect to eat fresh produce in the middle of winter if you live in Canada. Food preservation for consumption in Winter is a well developed and scaleable technology.
Edit: https://lemmy.ml/post/56369 and specifically this video.
deleted by creator
I canāt think of many āminorā laws, because itās hard to really define what āminorā is in this context. So forgive me if some of these are outside the scope of the question.
It is of vital importance for unionizing to be able to exchange information with strangers about your salary. Making that illegal (as apparently the case in some US states) is just playing into the hands of capitalists.
If you are worried about the ādinner-party social stigmaā thing, then you need to think a bit about just how privileged of a situation that is. No offense meant :)
Edit: Looking at the point aboveā¦ is there somehow an issue with the police asking homeless people about their job and salary? You probably need to explain a bit better what you mean, as it is easy to misunderstandā¦
imo talking to fellow workers about how much the boss is paying, and a random stranger asking me what I do for a living while iām just trying to buy glasses are two totally different things.
edit: also i should add that my trade is one that liberals have really strong opinions against (i was called a ābaby killerā once for even just hinting at working with firearms) and Iām really fuckinā sick of having to dance around the question when random people Iāve never seen before in my life randomly ask, even though thereās absolutely no reason for them to need to know. Once I was in the line at a walmart, a carton of eggs in hand, and an old lady came up to me and started asking me a fucktonne of weirdly specific questions. Iād really like if that was in some way prohibited behaviour, because fuck it feels like it should be.
Obviously no-one is forced to answer such questions from random strangers (and at least personally I have never experienced people asking such questions out of the blue), but it isnāt just about co-workers as you need to be able to freely exchange salary information across companies and also different economic sectors to make an informed decision where to work.
The HOA shouldnāt exist period. They are a tool by rich/middle class people to keep the poor out of sight and out of mind, essentially forcing them out of ābetterā neighbourhoods through fees and mandatory spending to keep their house looking nice even over their essentials. Theyāre also not great for the environment by (in most cases) mandating the presence and upkeep of conventional lawns, which are, ecologically, one of the worst things you can plant. Try planting an eco friendly native grass lawn or a garden of edible crops and youāll get fined (or sent to jail, seriously). They have also been known to impede the installation of things like rainwater collection systems or rooftop solar panels.
Why not self-organized? The transports in revolutionary Barcelona (1936) seemed to work fine as a workers coop.
Also valid for me, the idea was to be just 1 company.
Hi Satan. On furlough from Hell?
Iād introduce a (municipal) law on homelessness in some medium-sized American city. The nature of the law would allocate some minor funding for a peculiar type of homelessness census (to occur at set intervals), and would also declare certain homeless people to be the responsibility of that municipal government while declaring the rest to be the responsibility of other local governments (municipal, county, and state) based on some rather boring criteria. Such asā¦
And so on. The details of qualification are less important than the general idea: that certain homeless people are the responsibility of the locals, and that they canāt shirk responsibility for them. But that others, migratory, are not. Even as they disqualified those homeless people, theyād also be writing up paperwork that proves they are in fact the responsibility of other local governments elsewhere.
I would expect that other nearby local governments would enact similar local laws in retaliation, so it would have a crystallization effect, and eventually most or all throughout North America would do the same. Instead of trying to shirk responsibility for this problem, theyād start to take responsibility for themā¦ after all, itās a much more constrained problem once you no longer worry about the solution just attracting more homeless to your city, itās a cheaper problem, and now youāve declared yourself to be responsible for these people when they meet some reasonable criteria.
Without this, cities like Los Angeles and New York (secretly) find it impossible to deal with it on a rational and level basis. If you spend x dollars solving the problem for y homeless, you soon have 5y homeless or 20y homelessā¦ and you no longer have enough money to do that. And if you can anticipate this happening, you never even try in the first place.
The criteria can be designed such that 99% of homeless people would qualify somewhere. And the small remainder would then be a much smaller issue, one that we might even expect the US federal government to pick up the tab for.
I get tired of hearing about how it is a problem of compassion or lack thereof, it is 100% a game theory problem.
How is homelessness a game theory problem? Itās a capitalism problem. Thereās literally millions of empty dwellings (at least in France and USA) that could be used. How about, instead of a census, simply expropriating owners of empty housing? That would be a lot easier, a lot less costly, and 100% effective at housing homeless people.
I canāt tell if you didnāt read my comment, or youāre just not very insightful. The trouble with counter-intuitive ideas is that 99% of the population navigates through life using nothing but intuitionā¦ and so theyāre completely blind to it.
Thatās how.
Though I suppose if you just ship off all the homeless to gulags, in a sense thatās a āsolutionā too. I can see how that would appeal to some people. But I operate from a place of āitās not a solution if it hurts other peopleā.
Sure. It will be less costly, if you ignore the tens of billions youāll need to pay your soldiers doing the expropriation.
Or you could just enslave them, I guess. Theyād be āfreeā in the Stalinist sense of the worse, really.
I was talking about some city of 250,000 spending $100,000 over the course of a few months. Itās a price tag so low even I sort of think itās bullshit. But itād work.
Why would requisitioning empty dwellings be complicated or require specialized infrastructure? I agree with you if we talk expropriating the wealth of our overlords, they will recruit militias and put up quite a fight. But weāre talking housing which is both really necessary for basic survival, and a very tiny portion of rich peopleās wealth, so thereās two options to it:
Iām talking an entire country spending ~50K$ per year to employ two locksmiths full-time to break into abandoned houses and rehouse people. Canāt beat that price tag or its result. Or even better, just instruct the police (or better yet, dismantle it) so that when people do it without any funding, they donāt get in prison for āprivate property violationsā or whatever bullshit they come up with. We live in countries with such abundance of resources that noone would starve or sleep on the streets, were it not for the police.
All in all, i really donāt see what you sense would be wrong with requisitioning empty dwellings, or what this has to do with stalinism. (to be clear, as an anarchist iām profoundly against central authorities, and as a squatter i donāt expect any answers from the State; i simply pointed out if they wanted to they could rehouse everyone by just snapping their fingers, and that the housing crisis is a lie just like every other capitalist ācrisisā)
Because when you requisition those empty dwellings and the owners refuse, you will need a large mechanized infantry to tell them that their refusals are irrelevant. Within the United States, the police authorities might substitute as that infantry, but do you have much confidence on them obeying? Even if they work, theyāre hardly cheap. So instead, you go with some cannibalized portion of the US military, but they clock in at something like $0.8 trillion per yearā¦ does anyone think of that as inexpensive?
So, specialized? Dunno. But definitely non-cheap infrastructure.
Of true wealth, real estate comprises the bulk of it. Sure, Bezos (and most of the rest) have the vast portion of their wealth as stock/equity in various businessesā¦ but that was never true wealth anyway. Thatās imbeciles speculating on the shares of companies that (for the most part) donāt even pay dividends. Itās a distraction.
Besides, weāre not talking about Bezos. Whatever else you might say about him, heās not exactly a slumlord squeezing single mothers for rent money. Weāre talking about the guy who managed to squirrel away an extra $80,000 over his long career, and buys some flipper shack to rent out for passive income. He definitely has most of his surplus tied up in that homeā¦ assuming he has one of his own, and assuming that home is similar, something like half of his wealth exists in that building and the plot underneath it. If heās managed to do two or three of those, then even larger fractions of his wealth are invested in those properties.
For him itās life or death. For you, itās an academic discussion on some obscure internet forum as a gotcha against another guy who was offering a good faith, honest answer on how to effect positive changes with minor laws. But I guess itās simpler and cheaper to just mobilize an army and perpetrate unnecessary violence. That landlord, heās willing to reciprocate to keep it.
Were that true, then you wouldnāt be talking about expropriation which requires central authorities. Your solution would be for people to simply squat in those homesā¦ which already happens. And which hasnāt solved homelessness. This really isnāt a problem that capitalism is directly culpable forā¦ when the capitalists find someone squatting in an āemptyā dwelling, more often than not, they donāt resort to violence. They give those people a wad of cash to āmove outā.
Why this hasnāt solved homelessness is that many of the homeless have severe sociological/psychological issues that prevent them from taking advantage. They need help beyond the āhereās a roof and a door that closesā. That help almost certainly requires a central authority, and those central authorities currently refuse to help. Not because they donāt want to (some do), not because they donāt have good ideas about how to help (some do), but because helping 10 homeless people quickly becomes helping 75,000 homeless people and thatās just not in the budget. Other municipal governments cheat and donāt bother to help if they see one helpingā¦ why bother when someone else is doing that? Itās easier, cheaper, and the homeless soon become āfar awayā.
It really is a game theory problem. And I told you how to create conditions to keep them from defecting so we can have the optimal outcome, and rather than appreciate the true solution, youād rather doā¦ well, what it is youāre doing now. Thereās no hope for the human species. Youāre all getting everything you deserve.
So weāre talking minor laws so proper revolutionary actions i will not advertise hereā¦ How about:
Thatās the most āminorā/reasonable demands i can come up with. All of this could be achieved through āsimpleā political will from one day to the next.
i donāt think you want inequality