🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Empiricism_Reloaded Just because you may not define it as such doesnt change that its impossible to have something be sustainable without it being profitable. Anything people want is profitable (see my earlier example), and people must want a thing in order for them to be motivated to sustain the thing.

@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

@Pat @coyoty @nyquildotorg @stux

No not how it works, youcant reproduce something simply if you intend to criticise it... there are 4 criteria all of which much be met to qualify as fair use (outside of de minima clause)... none of those conditions are met here.

Google satisfies the criteria, stux did not.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Finite resources are perfectly fine. Its not like when you use a finite resource it disapears... whe you use copper the copper still sits on the surface of the earth ready to be used again when its done, you never use it all up.

There are only a few truly concerning resources, and its not because they are finite, but because of other reasons: Helium because it cant be made and escapes the atomosphere, and fossile fuels because it converts into harmful gases that cause other issues.. you can apply this to a few other things of course, but overall having a finite amount isnt the top concern

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

They tend to act as super conductors. In fact I was just involved (marginally) in this application in our lab.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@tatzelbrumm @freepeoplesfreepress

every type of violence is unique... knife violence is easier to get through metal detectors (ceramic knives), poisons are more covert and easier to kill larger people, etc... Every type of violence has its own unique concerns and factors, and none of them are particularly valuable to put all your focus on.

@Empiricism_Reloaded That seems like defeatist logic... if someone cant get rich off the product then the product wont ever be made.. even if something is plentiful and renewable it can still be something people get rich off of.... People literally get rich selling mushrooms and you could grow your own in a showbox with some woodchips.

@TruthSandwich

Absolutely, and that is a challenge we may not be able to solve... but its not impossible... If its made from microorganisms it may be quite economical, it would grow itself with a bit of nutrients

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Metal is biodegradable, and doesn't necessarily need to be mined (for example it can be extracted from ocean water, though its not efficient). But the conductors might be hard to do non-metal... only non metal conductors I know of are ceramics and they still need mining I think.

@TruthSandwich

@Empiricism_Reloaded

That would defeat the whole purpose!

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

There is legit scientific prototypes of solar panels made from non-mined biodegradable materials... if they will become viable and when is another question. But there is no fundemental limits in physics that would make it out of the realm of possiblity.

I think I even remember solar panels made with microorganisms that reproduce.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Make but cant eat, thats my job!

@TruthSandwich

@tatzelbrumm haha appreciated :)

@Empiricism_Reloaded

I had a point? Thats news to me... good!

@TruthSandwich

@tatzelbrumm Im not sure its anything that needs fixing. Remember you lay down in an MRI not sit up so its not a posture thing in the usual sense.

@tatzelbrumm You do not, though you arent the first person who noticed it... I was just sitting in the MRI machine weird I think.

@TruthSandwich

yes, but only organically grown hemp in a green house powered by the solar panels they make!

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

What if you have kids but enslave them to make an endless line of solar panels?

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Nah, word around the water cool is that evidence is proof of a conspiracy and only things without proof are true!

@TruthSandwich

@freepeoplesfreepress Not at all, killing people en mass is quite easy and guns are in no way the exception...

Poisons easy to make or obtain can kill entire rooms of people, pipe bombs made from off the shelf materials as well... trucks can and have plowed through masses of people and killed as many or more than many mass shootings, you could buy an old vacuume tube, peel off the shielding, stick it in a bag and kill everyone with radiation in a room (long term agonizing death)...

There are countless ways a person with very little resources or brain power could kill people en mass in ways that are easier than a gun, and much harder to combat... the idea that guns are singularly unique in their ability to kill en masse is simply false.

Now where a gun **is** unique is it is precise. When it is used to kill it is much easier to kill one bad guy in a crowd and leave the good guys unharmed with a gun than any other method. Which is exactly why we need guns...

@freepeoplesfreepress

I think your missing the point.. .why is "gun violance" a relevant subtopic of violence at all... we dont do it with any other means of violence.. knife violence, poison violence, fist violence... we never single those out, so why guns? It seems arbitrary to me to create that classification at all.