Yup, if we can sequester the extra CO2 in the biomass part of the carbon cycle I think that’s the best solution, it doesn’t fight life on the planet, instead it works with it.

Yep, I concur. I’m of the opinion that that’s all you need to solve this problem.

All in all good news. It means less plastic and more biomass.

That’s because this narrative is at odds with another environmentalist narrative.

Carbon compounds are oxidized by non plant organisms to form carbon dioxide.

Yup. Plastic’s main selling point, it’s durability, is no longer going to be a factor when choosing it as a material.

There’s a lot of discussion in here about how great this is. And it is. But it is at odds with another environmentalist concern.

What if we could take carbon dioxide and turn it into something that can’t be degraded by living organisms? Well, plastic is one of those things, or was. Plastic is a form of carbon sequestration.

These micro organisms, they’re turning plastic into carbon dioxide. Any and all carbon compounds on earth will enter the carbon cycle. every drop of oil pulled out of the ground, even the stuff that’s used to make plastic, will wind up in the atmosphere.

Fuck yeah thanks man

Again thinking you know me. Just stop, you’re making yourself look stupid.

I have experience contributing to a semi successful FLOSS project, one that I’m 100% certain you use daily. Why do people just assume they know you on the internet? What is it, law of averages? “The likelihood this person arguing with me is a nobody is high enough I can assume it.” “If they disagree with me it means they don’t know what they’re talking about.” How does this mentality work? You’re the third person in a week on Lemmy (which makes it particularly funny) that has just assumed I don’t have experience contributing to FOSS software. Do you have experience contributing to FLOSS software? Have you ever been expected to solve other peoples problems for free? I’m asking because I don’t know. Maybe you have. I wouldn’t want to get egg on my face assuming something.

There’s a difference between creating something and giving it to the world and being on the hook to help them solve their business problems. A libre or permissive license does not commit the person who released it to making it work for anyone, for any reason. It is in fact the first line in those licenses.

They don’t want to get paid for it being used. They want to get paid to continue working on it by people who need them to continue working on it.

Slow news day at the guardian?

Hollywood is at war with the people of this world and are therefore my enemy, I treat my enemies as I wish. Unfortunately, they don’t have a lot I’m interested in lately. I don’t find myself watching movies or TV much, if ever.

Music… It’s available on YouTube. I think most things I have pirated I have purchased a license for already.

I don’t play games. Games like old NES games are no longer available for purchase except on the secondary market, I think there should be a law about enforcing piracy laws on IP that is no longer available for purchase. People who archive it are doing God’s work.

I only use FOSS software.

Books… Its no different from a library in my opinion, it’s not like I’m going to need to read it twice, what’s the difference if I borrow it or download it if I’m going to have it in my head after reading it exactly once? I can’t even lend it to someone! A lot of the books I have read were created solely for the purpose of making the information available.

Generally speaking, intellectual property is a fiction, and once you release information out in the world it’s no longer yours practically speaking, you can whine all you want and create mechanisms to try to stop it from being true but it is true. It takes on a life of it’s own and spreads on it’s own merit.

The structure of government in the US is unlike any other country. The States actually are sovereign, but cede certain sovereign duties to the federal government, such as coining money and diplomatic relations. The US is not a country. The federal government cannot pass laws restricting the sovereignty of States within the bounds of the constitution. They aren’t provinces. If Wales passed a law legalizing any and all gun ownership tomorrow it would be superseded by the UK Parliament, this is not the case for US states. They are states in the truest sense, they are sovereign. You have to differentiate them particularly on this topic because they all have such different gun laws.

Wealth doesn’t make a country developed, western or any of that. The US is largely undeveloped, in most of the country (using the term loosely here for lack of a better word) the only sign of development is paved highways. Japan is significantly more developed for example, not in the west. It’s democratic too. Japan is the “at least one country” I referenced earlier with a higher suicide rate than the US. It’s actually the only country in the world where, when guns were banned, crime went down. If suicide were illegal there I doubt that would be the case.

If you’re trying to get at what the cause of the violence is, you have to compare the US to all the countries. What’s the cause? If it were only the abundance of guns then those countries wouldn’t have the murder rates they do, developed or not. We can reasonably ignore the murder rate in countries like Somalia with an ineffective state, or Mexico too if you want where gun ownership is practically banned but everyone has them. Even those though, guns per capita can be measured against murder and other violent crime, because guns per capita is a fact irrespective of effective bans. But countries like Argentina, Brazil, rich with natural resources, having functional democracies and enforceable gun laws, still have violent crime rates and murder rates significantly higher than Europe, on par with the US. What does the US have in common with those countries? It can’t be “black people” like you hear from some types, because Argentina has almost none, they’re almost all white people. It certainly isn’t language, or the UK would have a violent crime problem too. I posit that it isn’t guns because of all the arguments I’ve made.

Personally I think it is that we all share a history of carving nations out of rugged land, disparate peoples, and unruliness and rebellion. You’ll notice that violent crime is higher in other countries that fought for independence too, such as some in Africa, some middle eastern countries where the state doesn’t crucify people, and some parts of Asia. You see countries where there’s a lot of crime in Africa for example, or even failing states, we even go so far as to rightly blame it on the fact that the borders were drawn uniting disparate peoples under one state, yet never apply that same logic to America, a state governing many, many disparate peoples, some of which have centuries old grudges against one another, you year it attributed to being developing, or in other words, carving a state out of rugged land, and they in many cases also have a history of unruliness and rebellion very similar to the Americas, what with their very recent revolutions to end the yoke of colonialism. Carving a functioning country from the dirt, uniting many disparate people and rebelling against oppression are a bloody business and breed aggressive people.

As far as the suicides go, I think it has to do with a lot of things. Popular culture that glorifies depression and self harm, perceived lack of prospects, school environments that are very unhealthy and include bullying, locking down of all behavior and an almost complete lack of actual education. For adults you see suicide rates highest in divorced men and veterans, I wouldn’t attribute those to gun ownership. The environment very much matters more so than the tools in your vicinity when it comes to suicide.

That’s because men are naturally more aggressive.

There are a lot of different things that make america more dangerous to young people than guns. The culture is less united, more individualistic and more violent. 1950s US had equal access to guns as today, and probably a higher per capita gun ownership rate, and had fewer murders and suicides. Why stick to western industrial nations? A gun ban is a gun ban, less guns per capita is less opportunity to use a gun no matter if the government has nukes or not. “The West” is an arbitrary distinction here. America is not like Europe, it is more like the rest of the Americas culturally and historically, all of which have higher murder rates than Europe, and all of which have less guns per capita and more restrictive gun laws than the US. Some of them even have higher murder rates.

There are several countries in the world with higher rates of murder with less guns per capita, almost all of which have much stronger gun restrictions, and at least one with a higher suicide rate. Why don’t we figure out what that odd line is that differentiates them from Europe. I highly doubt it’s gun availability.

If you count US states individually rather than aggregating the whole federation of 50 sovereign states with their own gun laws, and 350 million people, which would be akin to aggregating the EU as one country and so less accurate, the state of Maine is safer than any European country. It has some of the least restrictive gun laws anywhere in the US.

The study looked for disparities and trends in the data. As before, firearm deaths were largely in older teens, with 83 percent of deaths in teens ages 15 to 19. Most were among males, who accounted for 85 percent of the deaths. Black children remained disproportionally affected, with the gap widening—50 percent of the deaths were among Black children. The death rate among Black children and teens increased from 16.6 per 100,000 in 2020 to 18.9 per 100,000, the largest increase among the racial categories.

Be careful, people might construe this to mean black young men and boys are killing each other at absurd rates.

As for intent, 64 percent of the 2021 firearm deaths were from homicides and 30 percent were from suicides, with the remainder from unintentional shootings. Homicide rates increased across all age groups, which was part of a multi-year trend. Between 2018 and 2021, homicides increased 66 percent in the 0–4 and 5–9 age groups. For kids aged 10–14, homicides increased 100 percent, and 62 percent in teens 15–19.

That’s 4% of these deaths being accidents, that is, the result of guns. In all other cases, gun use was the result of someone wanting to kill someone else or themselves.

Let’s do the math here. The article says 5.8 deaths per 100,000. That’s 0.0058% of young people dying from guns. What’s 4% of 0.0058%? 0.000232%. That’s a rounding error. It’s a travesty for every one of these families, every single one of which had a gun in their house of their own volition. Not much of a widespread societal problem though.

The racial disparity in homicides was stark, with the rate of deaths among Black children being 11 times higher than that of white children. For suicides, white children accounted for 78 percent of the deaths.

Again, be careful, someone might conclude that black teenage boys are running around joining gangs and killing each other at record rates. Best just leave race out of these studies in the future lest you be called a racist.

If you’re still in Texas you don’t have to register it.

Put it on the top shelf of your closet and don’t let your nephews go in your room. And/or, keep it unloaded.

Yes, until the revolution is complete and your usefulness to the commissar has ended, after which you’re handed a pickaxe and told to go into the mines.

Well ackshully people’s frontal lobes don’t finish developing until they’re 26, so 20-25 year olds should also be considered children and have their vote, right to drink etc stripped.

I want you to read what you wrote out loud and so on and so on. We call legal adults “adults.”

If These Trees Could Talk. Polyphia. Those are two I like quite a bit. Explosions In the Sky. This Will Destroy You.

It will work either way but I personally would.