And it is!

Insufficiently.

Like here in Europe.

It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren’t any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.

“free range” eggs

Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.

The problem here is not Bezos, it’s YOU

Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.

Most smaller delivery vehicles here in the UK are fully electric.

That’s cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc…) Even if that’s given, this alone doesn’t solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.

Regarding the remaining list: that’s surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.

And you don’t.

How about you don’t generalise a whole population?

Instead you ban contraception and abortions.

You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.

And it is!

Insufficiently.

Like here in Europe.

It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren’t any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.

“free range” eggs

Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.

The problem here is not Bezos, it’s YOU

Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.

Most smaller delivery vehicles here in the UK are fully electric.

That’s cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc…) Even if that’s given, this alone doesn’t solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.

Regarding the remaining list: that’s surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.

And you don’t.

How about you don’t generalise a whole population?

Instead you ban contraception and abortions.

You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.

How does that even go together? Being anti-vax and at the same time condemning people for not being vaccinated?

Get your facts straight next time.

This is also covered in others, more recent findings. Want me to dig them out for you?

If you wouldn’t buy that shit, Bezos won’t be selling that shit and there would be no pollution

Which is part of what I meant by:

“it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production”

But not in such a condemning way as you.
The fact, that you were able to write your comment, shows, that even you felt the necessity to buy stuff. And I am 100 % sure that the device, you used for that, was not produced free of GHG emissions or under ecologically (or even socially) perfect conditions. As bad as this is, this is the case for most people. But did you have a choice? Can you live an average life in our current society without stuff like that? Do you even have the option to choose alternatives?

That’s my point. This kind of “you buy, you choose” attribution of causal chains, is surely true to some degree. But imo it’s an oversimplification to label it completely like that. I can’t even buy fucking organically grown tomatoes in my closest supermarket. So I don’t even have the option to choose the better alternative. This also applies to several other basic foods. Yet, I also need them. Most of the times such items are more expensive than the worse ones. The latter is a huge deal for people who really don’t have that much money. So they literally can’t buy the better options.

The market self-regulates that kind of stuff by itself to some degree. But not completely. And policies worldwide, especially in industry nations, fail to address these issues, thereby fueling the problem. Then of course there are further problems, like a lack of education and awareness about it and so on.

Another thing: how easy do you find it to see which product is the better one from an ecological perspective? How do you know it’s not just greenwashing? Do you feel like it’s an easy choice?
If so, congratz, you are a lucky one. But for most of the rest of us, that’s really not made sufficiently transparent.

Again, something which needs to be regulated.

And then, Bezos and co. could make their whole business conpletely green. Do they want to? Nope. Bezos and co. also could decide not to take their private jets, or live in a private mansion, live lifestyles which cause so incredibly more emissions than the one of average Joes and Janes. And again, they decide against it. But yeah sure, go on making each customer and the whole of humanity responsible.

Not the amount of people are the problem, but their disregard for eco-systems, especially the failings of policies. Humanity managed to survive for thousands of years without fucking up the whole planet. Shit really started to spiral downwards since the industrial revolution.

I bet this is also somehow the immigrants’ fault. /s

(Looking at you, right-wing voters in EU. ò.ó )

Although I also think there is a correlatin between number of people and detrimental climate effects, it’s wrong to reduce the causes to that. Despite the fact that “the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent”, it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production. As you probably know, the climate started the downwards spiral since the industrialisation. If we werent producing so insanely much GHG-emitting stuff, it wouldn’t be such a problem. (Regarding temperature alone. There are of course also other detrimental effects on our eco-systems due to things like overuse of fertilisers for example.)

I bet, a lot of people felt that way throughout history.

However, given we have the internet, the best access for information we ever had, it’s really ridiculous how little people seem to care about spending some time to critically think about their election choice.

Thanks for sharing!

As far as I know, there is no such list (yet).

What should be done:
Escalate it to the people responsible for IT administration & security in your company or institution. They’ll deal with it.

But the default step if you suspect of being infected is not to use the device at all until you got a green light for it from the security/admin folks. Power down, disconnect from any networks, either via physical cables or wireless, unplug external storage devices and wait for further info.

I love this.
Also hilariously illustrates the obsession of so many people over genitals instead of seeing the person having them.

I’d say give it a try and see for yourself.

I can just recommend using Firefox for a multitude of reasons. However, I am biased as I have been using firefox for almost two decades and did not have many reasons to complain.

I understand that you made such an experience, but I can’t share it though. I’ve been a Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox exists, which is almost two decades. (I think I joined somewhere between 2005-2007). I’ve tried other browsers, sometimes I had to. However, I didn’t notice any benefits compared to Firefox. Especially not in performance. Even though benchmarks have always shown clear differences, they weren’t significant enough for me to consider switching, as the difference really didn’t impact my browsing experience.

Regarding the memes: That was just a random annectode which I found suitable here. I don’t claim it has been that way since the beginning. (Can’t relate to that anyway.) But given that it has been around for a while, I don’t see how performance can be an argument in favour of Chrome in this.

I’ve been a loyal Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox has existed. So I’m probably a bit biased. However, when I used other browsers, and if it wes just to try them out, I didn’t notice any benefits in terms of loading websites and executing their scripts. This includes Chrome. In benchmarks there are obviously differences visible, but to me as a user they didn’t matter. I wasn’t so short on time that I needed those microseconds. So I really don’t get how performance could be an argument in this.

Restore Privacy – Alternatives to Google Products – The Big List (2024)

How was it more performant? As I remember it, Chrome was loading websites not noticeably faster than Firefox, as website loading speed depended and still depends mainly on your internet connection and hardware anyway.

As I remember it, Chrome exploded because it was pushed onto users at every possible opportunity while Firefox depended (and still depends) on users actively looking for it.

Used Google or Google products? Get ads for Chrome. Wanted to download Google Earth? You had to activly uncheck a box such that Chrome wasn’t going to be installed as well. Meanwhile no ads and not the same amount of exposure for Firefox.

That way they achieved a critical mass and snowballing did the rest. There were so many users using it that it was considered a good choice just because it was used by many people.

Regarding the performance aspect, if there even was a noticeable difference, it was worse than Firefox. Where else did the “Chrome eating RAM” memes come from?

Sadly not just the USA.

This becomes even more ridiculous if you consider that we wasted about 1.05 billion tonnes of food worldwide in 2022 alone. (UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2024 Key Messages)

But no. Supermarkets will miss out on profits if they ban people from their stores who can’t pay.

Seems illogical? Because it is.

That’s a good way to use it. Like every technological evolution it comes with risks and downsides. But if you are aware of that and know how to use it, it can be a useful tool.
And as always, it only gets better over time. One day we will probably rely more heavily on such AI tools, so it’s a good idea to adapt quickly.

Moderate drinking is not a problem.

From a health perspective, it certainly is.
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.

And it does assist with socializing

Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don’t learn that it’s perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.

which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.

Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.

The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.

There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.

After reading through several of their comments and having engaged in a discussion with them myself, I get the impression that they don’t care about respectful and civilised discussions and I think it’s possible they are trolling. As they also resort to throwing insults around, evading questions and not really showing interest in conducting a line of arguments, it’s probably best to disengage.