XeroxCool

joined 2 years ago
[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Right, I understand the difference in which the book is required and the card is insufficient. I'm just confused on how the card saved your book. You said they were stamping the book when you made land crossings. Instead, to save your book, you brought the card, which they obviously couldn't stamp. So what did they do instead? Issue no stamps at all? Stamp something else? Whatever they did instead, could that alternative not also be applied to the book? I've only ever used my book by plane, so I don't know what the alternatives are

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Do they stamp something to supplement the card? Is that not an option with the passport book?

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"I, too, live in my house" is what I say to friends who start feeling embarrassed about their conditions. There is a bar for what I can tolerate, but it's mostly about hygiene. Lots of animal fur? Well just let me have a seat that isn't covered in fur. If it's a sheet over the couch, so be it. But my bar is somewhere above "smells like cat piss and there's dried puke on the carpet". Having cats for 30 years, I get it, it's a hassle, but I don't want to be there. Food containers are another thing that can bug me. Empty? Throw it out. Still has food that should have been refrigerated yesterday? Definitely clear garbage at this point. I'll take a greasy, crumby stove over that, easily. Last spot, really, is the bathroom. Sticky or discolored surfaces are a problem.

But cluttered areas? Stacks of mail? Bad organization? No organization? Whatever. With any of this, I liked you as a friend before, and I'll like you as a friend after. Maybe I don't want to come over, but it's not like I'm going to use your living situation as judgement on who I thought you were outside.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

OK, so you don't have fossil-fuel-free solutions, either, and you don't have a reasonable plan to handle night time energy needs. You specifically said that utilizing fossil fuels at all was an issue, including for production of renewable, with the claim about not being able to source a turbine without fossil fuel use. It sounds like you don't understand that "night" happens during normal human waking hours, that there are actual activities and demand for energy specifically at night, and that there is no direct path to a fossil-fuel-free energy solution. I have no idea how subsidizing alternates erases fossil fuels for your idea.

Its the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere and I have 8.5 hours of daylight today. That's about 4 hours of decent solar production without clouds, since the sun is so low. I guess I'll just try sleeping, without electric heat (since CNG is a fossil and solar is dormant), for 14 hours tonight from dusk to dawn (5pm-7am). Wait, solar panels are still using fossil fuels for production, so those are out. Is a wood stove OK? It's renewable, but it's a major CO2 burden, much worse than CNG. Can't mine lithium or nuclear material with the existing industry, all runs on petroleum. I'm not sure if life is worth living, as every waking hour has been spent at work, using the small time frame to try to support myself financially.

This also means no activity can occur at night. No manufacturing? Triple the facility sizes to allow the "night time" morning shift and the "night time" late night shift to operate with the daytime shift. Can't go anywhere, can't entertain myself, can't eat, can't enjoy anything other than lying in the dark, waiting for the sun to come back. That's weird, putting all the overnight demand in the daytime is causing brownouts because we couldn't triple our energy production. But hey, the burden is being shared and we're all miserable for 5 straight months. But the summer will be rad with only demanding 8 hours of dormancy.

Look at the project. It's not a continuous production of CO2. It says this one contains 2,000 tonnes of CO2 and produces 200MWh/day. A CNG power plant is somewhere in the range of 0.5kg CO2/kWh. That's 10,000kg CO2 from CNG for 20MWh, or 10 tonnes. In just 200 days, a CNG plant of the same capacity will produce as much CO2 as this entire facility contains.

Bashing innovative projects like this for being anything less than a time machine to go pure nuclear actively hurts progress. Is that your goal? To maintain the status quo?

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (13 children)

What's your plan that doesn't utilize the existing fossil fuel industry at all to go cold turkey on oil and full throttle on renewable?

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Also, per the article, the danger zone in a burst is only claimed to be 70m until cleared and the CO2 release still pales in comparison to a regular coal plant - "equivalent to 15 round trips between New York and London on a Boeing 777"

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

I bet the weather will be nice there during the climate wars. Mountains are a nice touch for the sea level wars, although sea levels might drop a bit at Greenland anyway, as the rise will disproportionately affect equatorial land more. Ironic, since Greenland is a significant contributor to landlocked ice loss.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A thread here about some recent comments from Hillary Clinton a couple weeks ago led to people saying they don't want to hear from her after losing to a fascist. Someone said we wouldn't be here if she could give a half decent blowjob.

I said "stop blaming women for aging"

Bunch of people (for lemmy's scale) took it as me being a social justice warrior (I guess?) that genuinely meant she got older.

No, I was making a joke about Bill's preference for children. I thought it'd land without extra context. Oh well, at least I sleep at night knowing my name still isn't in the epstein files

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. How unfortunate

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Too long, didn't read

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (4 children)

I give "gluten free" a pass because it's not always obvious. Some people do have very severe reactions and some products do, unsuspectingly, contain gluten in the form of filler content or for some other mechanical use. Sausage is specifically known to use wheat product as filler and binder. Same for deli meats and veggie burgers. Some places will even throw breadcrumbs into their ground beef for burgers to fake it's tenderness, so it crumbles like a meatloaf would.

Then there's seasonings. Potato chips are made from potatoes, right? But not all chips are potato chips. You'd hope a gluten-issue person would be able to identify pita chips or bagged crackers from the chips selection would have gluten, but it turns out, despite being a corn chip, Dorito dust can affect gluten sensitivities. Soy sauce and malt vinegar are issues, and seasoning mixes use flour to help distribution

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

With CRC Brakleen, red cans are chlorinated and green cans are not. Many US states have banned red Brakleen/TCE parts cleaners.

view more: next ›