EE

Mal abgesehen davon, dass man vor einer Mehrheit, die Diebstahl im Supermarkt befürwortet (und sogar selbst durchführt), eine dafür hätte, Supermärkte zu enteignen (und noch früher, sie stark zu regulieren), würde dieses hypothetische Szenario einfach dazu führen, dass alle Supermärkte entweder schließen oder so starke Sicherheitsmaßnahmen einrichten, dass die Preise deutlich steigen (zusätzlich zu höheren Margen, um den verbleibenden Schwund zu kompensieren). Niemand ist “vom System her gezwungen, das Spiel mitzuspielen”. Unternehmen können sich einfach aus Deutschland zurückziehen und ihr Geld woanders investieren oder die Branche wechseln.

I just told you what the article you linked says. Now you tell me, it’s wrong? Maybe read your own sources next time.

You’re comparing apples to oranges. The Nature paper includes all associated emissions for the food (using “air-freighted asparagus” as an example) while the EPA explicitly excludes non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and emissions from production and distribution of both the fuel and the car. On top of that you compare the most efficient car of 2022 in a mixed (city+highway) environment (yes you mentioned efficiency) to the upper limit of what the Nature paper estimates (if all additional energy expenditure was compensated by additional food intake), while the realistic estimate is 0.15 and 0.08kg CO2 per km for walking and cycling respectively.

So there might well be a factor of 10 between cycling to the supermarket and taking your car in terms of GHG emissions. We just can’t tell from the sources you linked. And while it’s an edgy position to take “I’m just adding to the carbon problem for personal health and entertainment purposes” your claim might well convince people that moving away from a car based society would not have any impact on CO2 emissions. I also think you could make your point that rich people have a way outsized impact without all choices of normal people being exactly the same.

The article you linked mentioned how that approval rating (for the central government - not the local ones) came to be for rural people: Censorship and propaganda combined with an attitude towards government similar to what you often see with religious people. If something good happens, the big guy far away did it. If something bad happens, it’s due to the corruption of men (in this case the corrupt local officials).

Edit: From the article:

“I think citizens often hear that the central government has introduced a raft of new policies, then get frustrated when they don’t always see the results of such policy proclamations, but they think it must be because of malfeasance or foot-dragging by the local government,” said Saich.

Compared to the relatively high satisfaction rates with Beijing, respondents held considerably less favorable views toward local government. At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied.”

[…] This dichotomy is highlighted by a 2017 Gallup poll, where 70 percent of U.S. respondents had a “great” or “fair” amount of trust in local government.

It can guide policy decisions (e.g. “Is it more important to subsidize/mandate sustainable meat production or phase it out all together?”), can make voters think differently about topics, which in turn influences politics (in democracies) and can be a simple way to put into perspective the impact of millionaires and billionaires compared to average people.

Also I’ve heard people justify flying a lot because the “carbon footprint” is made up by the fossil fuel industry, which in my eyes is the same argument as “My country only makes up X% of greenhouse emissions so we shouldn’t implement a carbon tax/invest in renewable energy/… until China/the US do”.

And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger

Because of the extra calories you burn? Do you have a source for that?

Yeah in Season 3 Episode 1 everyone can rate everyone else and it has some really unsettling consequences on people’s behavior.

Which long-term lower-tech solutions are you talking about concretely?

Für spätere Kommentare wäre aber auch das Generieren von Aktivität bei größeren Communities schwer, oder? Wenn bei einem Thema schon ein paar Kommentare viel Aktivität haben, werden meiner Erfahrung nach nur wenige weit runter scrollen, um neue, interessante Kommentare zu suchen, um mit ihnen zu interagieren.

Especially when it comes to “security” laws, the EU often seems to be on a concerning track, while it seems to have good ideas for many other areas (consumer protection for example). Does someone have a good explanation for this phenomenon?

Reddit screwing over app devs also potentially means app devs free to use their skills for Lemmy/Kbin.

I think there are multiple reasons for this.

1. Lots of new users (me included) who don’t know the ins and outs of Lemmy are joining. Some may not find the right communities for their posts (e.g. if they don’t exist on their instance, but on another) and post it to a somewhat related community on theirs.

2. There are many communities (often one per instance) that deal with the same topic, therefore generating similar posts in reaction to an event relating to that topic. While they might consolidate somewhat over time, I see it more as a feature than a bug of the fediverse. You could pick the one(s) you like most and unsubscribe from the rest.

3. Until there is a critical mass of users niche content will get little to no engagement while big current topics get almost all of it. These posts will be up there when sorting by top, hot or active, I’d imagine. Maybe you could solve that by sorting by newest.