Awww I can’t find it now. Maybe she got deleted?

There’s a simple solution to everyone loving their job:

Work should be optional.

You don’t see retirees volunteering for tasks they hate. Inb4 scrubbing toilets; I’d prefer to design toilet-scrubbing machines instead of toys for rich people.

deleted by creator

Ok no offense but this is what I thought and why I suggest you spend less time on Lemmy.

No shit. Do you think Marxists wanted Trump elected?

Instead of metaphors and conspiracy theories, could you just say who you think is doing what and why, in plain English?

Marxists, famous for wanting your money.

If Marxists could get 6.27M people to listen to them, you think they’d waste it on an election? Kamala simply ran an out-of-touch campaign.

I can’t think of any way to kill fascists that they won’t ban when it’s effective.

That is not very clear to see at all.

I want my journal to die with me. It’s got a lot of painfully honest stuff that could hurt the people I love.

“Give up your guns!”

What country are you lampooning? Who the fuck has said that, publicly, in the last 40 years? Are you talking about restrictions on assault weapons?

My grandfather used assault weapons to kill fascists. Maybe he should have gotten a license from the fascists, or used a pistol?

We didn’t have school shootings while the Black Panthers had access to assault weapons.

Marxists in America are a rounding error. This is the first time I’ve seen someone spend too much time on Lemmy.

Democrats lost the 2024 election in the 2020 election. Biden was a moderate that solved nothing, making poor white people angrier.

The only ways to make poor white people less angry will make billionaires angry.

Yeah but just think of how much GDP has grown!

(Sorry to be so verbose…)

For what it’s worth, I worked on geared turbofans in the jet engine industry. They’re more fuel efficient… but also more complicated, so most airlines opt for the simpler (more reliable) designs that use more fuel. This is similar to the problem with leaded fuel, which is still used in a handful of aircraft.

Airplanes could be much greener, there were once economies of scale to ship travel, and relying on altruism at scale just doesn’t work at all anyways. Pigouvian taxes have a track record of success. So especially in the short term, the selfish person who decides to “find himself” would look at a high price of flying (which now includes external costs) and decide to not fly at all.

Relying on altruism (and possibly social pressure) isn’t working, and that was always what big oil intended. Even homeless people are polluting above sustainable levels. We’re giving each other purity tests instead of using very settled economics.

I use it to code at work. Still needs a little editing afterwards, but it makes the overall process easier.

Sounds like the solution is to hire the people who wrote this new paper.

And don’t try to bit me with the AI bad for environment. Because I stopped traveling abroad by plane more than a decade ago to reduce my carbon emissions.

It’s absurd that you even need to make this argument. The “carbon footprint” fallacy was created by big oil so we’ll blame each other instead of pursuing pigouvian pollution taxes that would actually work.

The deadweight loss of a monopoly means he destroyed even more than he stole. The best he can offer now is an example.

Presumably the same stuff they did for the last year?