joshhsoj1902 @ joshhsoj1902 @lemmy.ca

Posts

9

Comments

343

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've never viewed getting rid of plastic bags as a carbon saving measure. To me it's addressing how bad they are when they get into the environment. As much as these bags can be reused, most aren't and they just end up thrown out.

Any one who assumes that another party is going to blanket support a non-confidence vote doesn't understand how minority governments work.

These are times when other parties have the leverage to influence what bills are being passed.

If things got bad enough that no other parties agreed with direction then ya we would be heading to vote, but realistically things aren't that bad right now, they could always be better, but it's not bad enough to just throw away leverage.

What a terrible graph. Market share as a percent on one side being compared to absolutely numbers on the other.

The author could draw any conclusions they wanted by just scaling the axis differently.

I looked it up and it seems like the survival rate of new businesses is about 78% in the US.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/1-year-survival-rates-for-new-business-establishments-by-year-and-location.htm

The first year seems to be the hardest and each year after that survival rates get better and better.

This data suggests that after 10 years nearly 35% of business are still in business.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/34-7-percent-of-business-establishments-born-in-2013-were-still-operating-in-2023.htm

How many new business fail?

I think that just shows you don't understand how to read statistics.

The article doesn't really go into details of what the developer has planned.

I have to assume they are looking to demolish the block and build something higher than 3 floors with a bunch more units?

It's unfortunate if the developer isn't offering any options for tenants to move back into the new building.

This doesn't feel like a renoviction though.

That's not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it's very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.

It's also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn't prove that at all.

That image shows revenue not profit

We don't need to even do the math ourselves. It's already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I'm surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

What? You're the one claiming that various metals aren't infinitely recyclable.

It's true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn't really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I'm just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn't need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it's useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you're being downvoted.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can't get over this. We're talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you're talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that's what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that's it's my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

Like I thought, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that's not because they aren't recoverable, that's because it's not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that's just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren't great at reading either. So I'll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you're such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I'm not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.

Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I'm aware).

The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.

From what I've seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.

I don't know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.

What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn't stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces

Sure it shouldn't be used like this. But incrementing a number isn't enough to steal someone's identity.

Isn't it the address being leaked with it that makes this notable?

You can't add a number to a SSN and also add a number to the street address to then narrow down which full names are associated with that SSN to then possibly be able to use it.

I didn't think the number had any use on its own