Right. Also the speed of transition matters a lot.

Take any devastating effect that climate change might bring. Regions becoming uninhabitable, millions migrating, thousands of houses destroyed, crops failing, species going extinct.

For any of these effects, it helps a great deal if they can be delayed by years or hopefully decades. It gives everything more time to adapt. Like 10 million people migrating in 1 year puts a hell lot more stress on everybody involved (including the receiving countries) compared to 10 million migrating in 10 years.

Or your country might be blessed to deal with wildfires and floods one after the other, instead of both occuring simultaneously.

More time is worth more effort.

What do you mean? Of course they do. It’s not a contradiction, because they are adversaries.

In Germany, whenever the discussion about wether to deliver a specific weapon system or not extends to a “new” weapon system, this usually is an argument against. Hurr durr, it could be used to poke too deep into Russian-held territory, or beware, even strike native Russian soil. Russia might not like that and pull Germany into the war or throw a nuke or whatnot.

The day this country’s tensions between conservatism and liberalism die is the day the USA ceases to exist. That tension is at the core of our republic, literally since its founding, and it’s what makes us great, unlike any other nation on Earth.

That sounds as if this tension was somehow unique to the united states. It’s not, it’s everywhere. Even worse, the US have less of a political spectrum than most other nations, just shy of dictatorships.

Nice! The market and climate need clear signals like that.

I think that’s fine. Unless we’re talking about greenhouses or urban indoor gardening, food grows in the environment. If you want to protect the food, you implicitly have to protect the environment, which makes you an environmentalist driven by food. There are lots of hazards which have little to do with climate (or at least which also have other, climate-unrelated causes), which can affect food. Invasive species, plastic, overfertilization, corporations, general socioeconomic disparities, just to name a few.

While continuing to tap new oil fields and failing to make sufficient progress. Also, this one isn’t about climate, but healthy and sustainable food. Connected issues, but still.

All that aside, to come back to the somewhat dodged question, what would make things go faster?

This is not the way to go about that

What is your way to go about that?

If you aren’t doing anything, what way(s) would you deem acceptable? If you know acceptable ways, why aren’t you following through? Honest if-questions, not meant as assumptions.

Healthy and sustainable food seems to be a decent goal. People should be able to get behind this. So if all the disagreement is about the right approach, where are the people with the right approach, and where are all the people voicing their concern about art supporting them?

Please help me out. It feels as if people are more concerned about pieces of art which they may never see, than about healthy food, the climate, or other major issues which affect everyone.

I get why it puts people off, these points exist. I just wonder what the “right” alternative to these “wrong” approaches is, and wether the critics walk the talk.

Adding a comment so people can experiment more in this thread.

Today, it makes more sense than ever. There was the critique answer “Yeah, but you cannot deport a Nazi, because he’s a German citizen!”.

Now that the Nazis were busy making plans how to deport millions of German citizens …

Not saying we should, at least for the sake of the receiving country.

;-]

Not sure what country you had in mind. Some do have a “no negotiation” stance: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/01/we-do-not-negotiate-terrorists-why. I also had the impression it was a widely accepted idea by the general population.

Arguments can be made either way which decision is at their people’s expense.

So I understand your area/bubble never favored “no negotiation”, but then I’m not talking about your area/bubble. My question was about the change in attitude.

Has the general consensus changed about how to deal with hostage takers? I think it was “don’t negotiate with terrorists” not long ago. Very tough for the relatives, but meant to prevent more harm in the future, by spoiling the plans of the terrorists.

When reading reports and comments about the Israeli hostages in Gaza, I get a different impression. Why is that, what is different?
Are there no concerns for encouraging more hostage taking this time?

More than 100k across Germany?

AFAIK it was 160k in Hamburg alone.

Depends on where on the scale between legit and scam your business is. I see three options:

• 1, It’s a scam: Terrible news for you, but good news for everyone else. In that case, your wellbeing is a sacrifice we’re willing to make.
• 2, It’s legit: Then it’s even good news for you, as it takes away the shady competition.
• 3, It’s legit, but still treated as if you’re the bad guy: That’s the interesting point. If that is the case, can you show where the ban fails?

Hamas never had a chance against IDF in a military clash. They try to erode international support for Israel instead, by dragging the giant into a long and dirty fight.

They also need to take care about their domestic support. In both cases, it is good for Hamas when IDF does cruel things.

So the strategic goal of continued fighting is to show everyone, abroad and at home, how evil Israel is, to stay in power.

Best take imo. Yes, the “bliss” is that we are ruled by ruthless billionnaires instead of cruel dictators. At least some of us.

As pointed out in my top level comment, the post is quite one-sided, omitting the dark truths. Cooperation is the overall best strategy, but so is to exploit as much as you can. Both are true, the combination is true.

Yes, and no.

First and foremost, you need no “justification” for being a decent person. And there are other reasons to be that way, as arbitrary as “I like it this way”.

Game theory is strongly related to evolution. It is safe to assume that everything we can observe in nature is a successful strategy. So this confirms the statement: Cooperation is a successful strategy. But the other side of the picture also exists: Betrayal is as well.

What the excerpt omits about the Prisoner’s Dilemma (not sure wether it’s mentioned in the video, which I did not watch now): The Nash Equilibrium can be the overall worst outcome. What does that mean?

A Nash Equilibrium is a situation in which no player can improve their own position. It is therefore a stable state. Things will change until they have settled in a stable state. It can be shown for Prisoner’s Dilemma that the Nash Equilibrium can be the worst case, where each betrays the other. Yes, they would both score better if they cooperated, but the system will still tend towards the state where both play nasty.

When multiple iterations are played, this changes a bit. It seems, if you not just meet once in a lifetime, but can remember your past, and have a common future, it makes more sense to cooperate. But there is still a place for uncooperative exploitation.

So yes, it’s true what you say about “best performing strategies”, but it should be noted that “evil” strategies don’t go extinct either.

It should be questioned how much these theories can be applied to our lifes. I mean questioned, not implying an answer. Either way I find it interesting how behaviour which we associate with morals emerges in very simple and abstract games.

Thanks for your nuanced contrapoints in this thread. I cannot judge wether it’s true, but I appreciate a different perspective.

what’s the maglev for?

Speed.

No, it will run at up to 150 km/h. Not inter-, but intra-city.

This article mentions it would be easier and cheaper to build new maglev tracks compared to traditional rails, because it needs no catenary, and can be put on stilts.

One reason might be: Each instance only has a partial knowledge of content in Lemmy. It can be unaware of certain communities on other instances, if your instance has not discovered them yet. Hence the need for all these meta-search tools.