Ah Blane we meet again
Test
Test successful!
Thanks buddy.
i guess that means since billionaires fly on planes everyone else is free to:
Would you recommend a better solution? A high speed railway over the Bering Strait, perhaps?
By far most planes in that screenshot are over land. You’re right, when you have to cross an ocean to get somewhere there isn’t really any alternative, but for all those over land they could’ve constructed and rode high speed railways instead. Countries like China and Japan show they can be proper alternatives, and there is no reason to use anything else for those distances.
Yeah, I know. I was hoping for an actual answer, looks like I got a few. I’d like more efficient travel, but the megacorporations that be have purposefully decided not to build it. Wonder why.
Most of the planes in that screenshot were over land.
I mean usually airports aren’t on top of land, not to mention how much more difficult airtravel would be if you had to reach the airport or plane by boat first hah
And if the infrastructure existed, we’d be golden!
Man, it sure is lucky highways and airports existed before we got here since we’re clearly incapable of building infrastructure.
“You have fuel efficiency improvements on the order of 1% per year, and flights are increasing 6%,” says Rutherford, “It’s not even close.”
straight up we need to fly less overall, so think of all the things that help reduce people flying and we need to do that
but you’re right, i need to head back to see the family at christmas, look at my options
You can get a good deal if you ride-share, in this case. If you have too much luggage, the flight won’t be viable either, so it seems like a doable comparison.
If I am reading the map correctly, mountains would come in the way, for a straight line path, but that is not a good enough excuse for not having high speed rail from Yelarbon to Burra, when there is a rail along the coastlines.
And since I don’t know better, I am going to assume that train cost is dues to coastal maintenance costs.
If the train was the cheapest option then that might be a relaxing travel. But it also uses holiday days you could be using for something else
yep I’m only staying for 3 days so the train ride would 4-5 days and my stay would be 3 days :|
i do want to take the train up to cairns though, that seems nice
Real hyperloop, not the Musk bullshit. Scaled up pneumatic tube systems operating at orbital speeds (7 km/s).
I’m pretty sure most flights are regional, not long distance, unless that’s only the us where we don’t believe in trains. There was an article a year or so back, where France started to actually ban regional flights for a few routes with good rail service. That’s where we need to be going.
Between high speed rail, and Zoom, we ought to be able to cut the number of flights in half while making travel better, and we can cut the least efficient flights since they spend proportionally more time climbing to altitude vs cruising
Even in the US, we have Acela and it’s arguably the best way to travel a few routes like BOS—>NYC, for the last two decades. Aside from connections, why do we still have hourly shuttles flying that route? Looking at the entire Acela service area, you probably have hundreds of daily regional flights. Most of those need to go
Edit: and this is part of my argument that California High Speed Rail is worth much higher funding to complete at pretty much any cost
the bering strait is no where near the oberpopulated east coast
Here’s a short version:
I’m pretty sure most flights are regional, not long distance ….ban regional flights ….we ought to be able to cut the number of flights in half
Imagine if there were half the number of flights, so the remaining ones weren’t as hard on our environment. Instead of going to fantasies like railroad over the Bering strait, let’s just only use flying for long distance routes.
how is anyone on the baring strait thats not in a major city supposed to get fresh food without regional flights? and I thought most flights were on 737 and bigger aircraft anyways?
Regional flights are not the same as like bush pilots, and obviously there will always be edge cases. Leave the Bering Strait alone: there’s not enough population or cities for modern trains to help, it’s mostly boats. There is the Siberian railroad, but it will never be fast or modern. Is there even regularly scheduled flights? Even if you look at Alaska, most of the population is along the coast but even a simple highway is tough. Sometimes there are disadvantages to living in more challenging parts of the world
Let’s focus on the 75% of the worlds population living in more hospitable regions
The rule of thumb used to be 500 miles. Any time you have two cities within 500 miles of each other, high speed rail is potentially the most convenient, efficient, useful way to travel. If we built it. Farther than that, flying has a strong advantage. That’s what’s generally meant by regional travel.
Apply a worldwide carbon tax to all emissions, which gradually increases year by year. Knowing that flying will become a less and less viable business model over time, governments and investors will begin on alternative investments in infrastructure and novel technologies.
For overland travel: trains.
For across oceans: probably also trains, possibly in tunnels.
Benefits to this approach:
- Actually reduces carbon emissions instead of moving them around.
- Doesn’t tell the individual to stop flying or eating steak. Leaves it up to them to decide which carbon emissions they value most.
- Doesn’t pretend to be omniscient and perscribe solutions. Instead lets everyone in the world solve the problem creatively.
- Creates a market incentive to accellerate the production of alternative technologies.
Most likely what would happen is that high speed rail would see a big boom immediately as governments looked for ways to reduce intra-country transit costs. Overseas flights, which are quite a bit rarer, would probably stay stable for several years (though with a fair amount of griping about the increased cost of flying). However, as time went on we would also expect to see overseas flights drop significantly. Businesses would prefer teleconferencing to sending delegates overseas for small matters. People would vacation overseas less frequently, instead staying on their own continents. Possibly there is a new industry - high speed sailing cruise ships - which would transport people across oceans at slower speeds for their vacations. Someone might invent better forms of carbon-neutral energy storage to make air travel more feasible again. Otherwise, nations start building undersea tunnels to connect rail lines across oceans.
Nobody:
Larry Ellison: Buys an entire 90,000 acre Hawaiian Island just because
Fixed:
Larry Ellison: Buys an entire 90,000 acre Hawaiian Island just because
While this scum is allowed allocate all of the world’s resources; every drop of water you conserve goes to their data centers and pleasure fleets.
There is no conservation until they’re gone. It simply cannot be done.
Companies 3 years ago: helping the emvironment is part of our core values
The same companies one day later: start to heavily use and train AI
That was always just green washing bullshit.
you are being generous. They are more like
“Under enlightened Trump’s benevolent leadership we have realized that environmental concerns, inclusivity, modern medicine and preventing political misinformation are all woke scams. Therefore effective immediately we are ditching all our efforts in these directions.”
helping the environment is part of our core values
By the way, back to commuting to/from the office, people!
Amazon bought an entire arena and named it “climate pledge arena”. You can’t make this shit up
I mean yes, but it’s not like they use an extra drop for every drop conserved, it’s still okay to not be wasteful.
it’s not
It almost literally is. Maybe not responsive at the scale of drops.
No. Fuck that. If the recycling bin still goes straight to the dump, don’t ask me to separate that shit out. It’s kind of offensive.
I would probably take weird ascetic joy in min/maxing my resource use, but I won’t save shit fot billionaires to abuse. Fuck that and you for suggesting it. Smoke em while you got em. I’ll start conserving when I’m picking lumber for guillotines. Or right after.
why is your local council providing 2 bins but sending everything to the one place?
when you bought it up what did they say?
Recycling centers try and then often give up and just landfill plastic. And then you’re dealing with the extra transportation to have it make a stop at the recycling plant on the way to the landfill.
There is a lot of “shift the blame off corporations to the consumer and act like they can do something” happening when in reality the consumer can’t do much, and what we can do isnt 100% effective anyway.
It’s more than just plastic. In most places most things are not recycled. More accurate to say: in vanishingly few places is even a single kind of thing recycled. Then every scrap we save goes not to sustainability, but golf courses pleasure yachts and data centers to sloppify the world.
So saving is not conservation. You literally cannot make a positive impact environmentally unless you’re good at violence.
That’s needlessly pessimistic, but I’ll believe general consumer recycling programs are not very effective.
- I know my composting program does something because I can give them food waste and get back compost
- I know can recycling works because there is an entire industry supporting it, plus aluminum is energy intensive and I’ve repeatedly read it is the most recycled material
- I know electronics recycling works because it’s expensive
- I believe industrial recycling works because they have bulk quantities of pure material and there’s generally profit somewhere.
Most of all I believe my city’s consumer recycling is fairly effective because of the number of things they have specific steps/actions/destinations for. More importantly we don’t have a landfill and the one we use is very expensive, so there’s a profit motive for minimizing what we dispose of
I’m not saying it can’t work or we lack the technology.
I’m saying it doesnt because its cheaper to just toss it all in the dump.
That’s funny because over here in Australia it looks to be progressing well?
For us it’s a yellow bin for recycling
Visy – what happens to your household recycling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXSmINKUOxg
Most Australian states have a 10c refund when you return a can or bottle:
Do you have this?
You can even then directly donate it to a charity of your choice: https://www.containersforchange.com.au/qld/donate-your-refund
On top of this if you use https://oceanhero.today/ for searching the money they make from ads goes towards paying people in poor countries to collect plastic
Australia wide we’re slowly phasing out single use plastics:
https://www.marineconservation.org.au/which-australian-states-are-banning-single-use-plastics/
That’s already reducing the amount of plastic by millions of tons
There’s also smaller things like:
Our new cards are made from 100% recycled plastic*, with 64% collected from coastal communities by Parley for the Oceans™.
https://www.bankaust.com.au/card
Recycling centers try and then often give up and just landfill plastic
Sounds like defeatist mentality to me, your councils/states should be doing better
Bread tags? What do they do instead? The only choices Ive seen are a stupid plastic tile or a wire, and I can’t imagine single use wire is better than a stupid single use plastic tile
cardboard :D
https://playandgo.com.au/australias-first-100-recycled-recyclable-cardboard-bread-tags-tip-top/
The new bread tags will launch on South Australian shelves first, removing 11 million plastic bread tags from South Australian waste streams by the end of 2021 and divert over 400 million plastic bread tags from landfill each year as they roll out nationally. By 2025, all Tip Top’s packaging will be 100 per cent recyclable, reusable or compostable to help close-the-loop
afaik they’re all cardboard now even other brands, I don’t think I’ve seen a plastic one in a while
Canada’s west coast is the same. Despite some reports implying the contrary, properly sorted flexible plastic waste does get diverted away from landfills and oceans and remade into product, in BC. And we also have bottle and can deposits, like most Canadian provinces (called consigne/consignment in Québec).
Apparently bottle deposits are only a thing in 10 of 50 US states.
Fuck that and you for suggesting it
So unnecessary. Rule 1.
While this scum is allowed allocate all of the world’s resources; every drop of water you conserve goes to their data centers and pleasure fleets.
Does it? If everyone in America reduced the amount of water they used would data centres and yachts use it all up? Do you believe this?
No
The Houston Advanced Research Center, an independent nonprofit research organization focusing on sustainability solutions, estimates that existing data centers in Texas will consume approximately 25 billion gallons of water, or 0.4% of the state’s total water use in 2025.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/25/texas-data-center-water-use/
He didn’t mean water literally (yet, as we are running out of non-salt water…)
But we have (and likely will) if it were to come to rationing their pools would be prioritized our bath or even drinking water
They waste so much more on data centers. They literally send used water to sewer; cheaper than cooling it for recirculation. This is standard.
He didn’t mean water literally
It’s still nonsensical, this idea that any savings at all are pointless particularly when you’re talking about small impact spread across 350 million americans and 400 million europeans, it adds up to far more than any data centre could ever hope
Take solar panels for example and the impact they have had:
We’re now emitting 5-8 million LESS tons of co2 per month and regularly have oversupply because there’s too much renewables in the grid:
We now have a booming battery rebate because we need for more storage than solar:
Since the launch of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program on July 1, roughly 161MW of home battery power has been added to the grid per month. At the current pace, the amount added in about 18 months will match the output of Eraring power station – Australia’s biggest coal-fired power plant
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/battery-rebate-to-deliver-a-coal-plant-of-power-in-18-months/
This is just from regular people like you or I making a small contribution that benefits themselves and the environment
Same with mushy straws but tbh we don’t even really do that anymore do you guys not have something like
The Planet Straw eco-friendly, Biodegradable, Compostable, and Recyclable, Planet-based PHA straws
They’re basically a drop in for plastic straws you wouldn’t know the difference
Non-comparable! In say California there is severe water restrictions even limits shower lengths at times yet pools can still be filled… If the rich weren’t allowed to take up inorbitant amounts of resources say for bezos private airspace tourism or megajacts then there would be a lot more left to us…
But lets talk about personal impact too! Imagine if instead of leaving it to up you to maybe change something the country made the investment? Like it could from the subsidies provided for the solar panels in most countries ( know for a fact thats the case in the us, Germany and Hungary)! And then then the change wouldn’t be a few percentage points, it would actually be considerable!
And still globally the fraction of renewables in electricity gen, and even primary energy consumption (counting renewable elec gen as “primary”), remains pretty steadfast at the levels of the 1990s. The basic reason is that they’re subsidising electricity, making it cheaper and people ( and I count both final consumers and intermediate producers as “people”) are using more of it. The only meaningful hiatuses in the growth of demand was the major recessions in 2008 and 2020, but consumption largely bounced back after those.
Savings are not totally pointless, but reducing prices of something does tend to increase consumption, and erode a notable amount (but granted probably not all) of savings. The earth’s human economy is largely set up to extract and use resources, give it more resources and it grows and extracts and uses more. We’re not going to let large amounts of cheap (or subsidised) resources sit there and go unexploited.
Adding new generation capacity has some similarity to adding a new lane to a busy highway. Induced demand.
From a Europe/EEC point of view It has been major restriction on coal generation (LCPD, IED, and to a minimal extent the EU-ETS) - that has reduced coal use in generation. Renewables doesn’t directly drive out fossil fuel gen , I think it has to be regulated out. Same will be with transport, if you don’t ban petrol, and just subsidise electric transport, there’ll be more trips you wont reduce petrol consumption. And even if you could ban petrol in cars, someone somewhere will start finding a way to use all that cheap fuel for something. The only saving grace for transport is that electric mass transit is way more efficient , than personal transport, and at least China knows what its doing on that front. But I’d be very worried for the planet as more and more people in India continue to start getting cars - I think they’ll easily become a market for any petrol saved by EVs elsewhere…
And still globally the fraction of renewables in electricity gen, and even primary energy consumption (counting renewable elec gen as “primary”), remains pretty steadfast at the levels of the 1990s
I think this might be out of date info, renewables (thanks mainly to china tbh) are now the cheapest form of power and surging with installations:
World surpasses 40% clean power as renewables see record rise
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2025/#executive-summary
Savings are not totally pointless, but reducing prices of something does tend to increase consumption
Good old Jevons
Adding new generation capacity has some similarity to adding a new lane to a busy highway. Induced demand.
I don’t agree with this, yes there is an increase in energy usage, I am technically using more electricity than ever from thanks to cheap solar because I fill up my car with 40kw worth of electricity every few weeks, but at the same time I now use 0L of petrol and no gas at all so it’s not exactly adding a lane to the highway if I’ve reduced my energy use elsewhere and added it on to renewables, it’s the same number of lanes but now I’m 100% renewable
We also have visible signs it’s eating into fossil fuels:
Closure of Spain’s biggest coal plant makes way for massive wind power development
UK to finish with coal power after 142 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y35qz73n8o
The Australian Energy Market Operator is predicting that the country’s remaining coal fired generators are likely to close much quicker than expected, saying they are becoming less reliable, more difficult to maintain and less able to compete with the growing share of renewables.
AEMO’s draft 2024 Integrated System Plan, the latest version of its 30-year planning blueprint, suggests coal fired generation will be gone from Queensland and Victoria within a decade – by 2033/34 – and that the last coal unit will close in NSW by 2038.
Same will be with transport, if you don’t ban petrol, and just subsidise electric transport, there’ll be more trips you wont reduce petrol consumption
This doesn’t make sense to me, if you were talking about cheaper petrol then sure, but if I replace my petrol car with an EV, even if I do more trips it’s still electricity, petrol usage has dropped to 0 despite an increase in trips
And we’re still in the very early years with EV’s, we have only just started pushing out electric trucks and buses, speaking of: Brisbane just got our first electric buses earlier in the year!
Onboard the new Brisbane Metro (now with added Chilli)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oWDE4zh2FA
They are so quiet it’s crazy!
tldr: I think your premise is that electricity usage is increasing and renewables are supplying it but not eating into fossil fuels and I don’t think this is true, the last few years solar, EV and battery innovation has been leaps and bounds
As an example I bought this in Jan 2023 for 14k: https://sonnen.com.au/sonnenbatterie-evo/
10kw
Today for 5.5k I can get 40kw:
OK, I’ll wait til the 2024 and 2025 data are out and see the radical change - but the past 30 years pretty much support my “outdated” view. I don’t accept that you putting no petrol in your car means petrol consumption is lower - someone else can (and almost certainly will) still use it somewhere somehow in some vehicle or other. Unless you’re still buying it and burying in the ground somewhere no one can find it.
In short - top line goes up faster than the renewables wedge grows —> global warming increases. In fact the fossil fuel wedges also grow as much or more than renewables. Maybe this will become more than a blip - maybe. But realistically I look at the graph above and 2008, 2020 are the things that stand out as a lesson.
People need fewer datacentres not more, wherever they’re located. I think people just need to take a long hard look at themselves and see whether they can survive by jerking off to 360p or 720p porn - it is just about exactly as hollow and unfulfilling as jerking off to 4K AI generated porn.
I wouldn’t use datacenters if I could get a static ip address, or even just ipv6, but those are more expensive than just renting a vm in a far away place
it is just about exactly as hollow and unfulfilling as jerking off to 4K AI generated porn.
gasp I can’t believe you said that in front of my 4k ai girlfriend!
top line goes up faster than the renewables wedge grows —> global warming
Yeah but there’s two parts here, one is that it’s not us or the data centres:
In contrast, India recorded the highest absolute increase in emissions, adding 164.8 Mt CO2eq compared to 2023, a 3.9% rise. Indonesia saw the most significant relative increase at 5%, followed by Russia (+2.4%) and China (+0.8%). The US and Brazil had relatively stable emissions with minor increases.
India adding 164 million tons of co2 more than it did the year before, that’s a shitload of data centres
The EU and US and Australia/NZ/UK all have emissions trending down, we’re playing our part, this place beats itself up a lot when if the rest of the world was like us we’d be well on our way down
Yes. Oh my god they have said they want this. They didn’t have to say, but they have.
The irony of using AI to make this image…
Humanity really is a lost cause
Insane that people can’t tell this is a low effort Photoshop and think it’s AI.
Look it’s literally a picture of a cropped cruise ship overlapped with a plane. It’s 5min of Gimp
You can see all kinds of typical AI artifacts
yeah at first glance i thought photoshop; but what human’d spend the time to photoshop that right most engine into the wrong place and make the wing wavy told Maybe this is AI being told to draw an image “in the style of a bad photoshop job”.
Yeah you are right. Didn’t notice the wrong wings. I was looking at the fact it managed to make an entire cruise ship look normal as evidence it was photoshop.
Training is expensive. Inference probably cost less than the mushy straw.
Do not patronize these systems, regardless of how small you think your individual impact might be. User counts are used to justify continued investments in these things.
People need to just say no.
I mean they use electricity, you want to advocate for more renewables in your energy mix locally then it doesn’t matter that they use lots of it because it’s renewable anyway
for example mistral is french: https://chat.mistral.ai/chat
MGX, Bpifrance, Nvidia, and Mistral AI plan 1.4GW Paris data center campus
A gigawatt-scale data center cluster is set to be developed outside Paris, France.
And how much co2 does it output? hardly any because France has tons of nuclear power plants:
then it doesn’t matter that they use lots of it because it’s renewable anyway
It does, it always does. There’s for one grey energy, and more importantly this energy can’t be used somewhere else where otherwise fossil fuels were used. We should always be efficient with our energy use…
this energy can’t be used somewhere else where otherwise fossil fuels were used
You think all nuclear power plants and renewables are running at max capacity all the time?
Right so France will probably export less electricity to Germany. Germany will . . . a) use less power b) burn more coal/gas
OK so lets invent option c) where we get Germany build some more nukes. Fine in 20 years time they might have 3-4GW of new nuke capacity, but in the meanwhile . . . there will have been several new data centres built in that time, and millions of houses in the UK will have started using aircon . . . and . . . we’ll be getting pretty close to 500ppm global carbon dioxide anyway.
If you’re going to keep having more people, and people are going to keep buying the same or more stuff each, this line will keep going up.
Germany is an interesting choice, since they shut down their nukes they’ve been pushing hard on renewables
‘Breakneck speed’: Renewables reached 60 per cent of Germany’s power mix last year
If you’re going to keep having more people, and people are going to keep buying the same or more stuff each, this line will keep going up.
That’s true but you have to remember the EU and US are on the downtrend:
There are other countries wiping out those gains, but the west is overall doing the right thing:
We want electricity heavy industries to operate in clean energy heavy environments, this is a positive, it supports the expansion of renewables and the economy
OpenAI to build its first European data centre in Norway, with partners
Meanwhile billionaires create thousands of AI memes a day and you say nothing.
Wrong! I whisper ‘aw beans’ under my breath every time it happens.
Says who? I give all my billionaire best friends shit every day.
We need the international court to set hard caps that will result in prison time.
International? We need the Intergalactic Court!
I gotta be honest, I would personally insert a straw into the nose of every baby seal on earth for a flying cruise ship.
I don’t know, there’s a lot of baby seals
That’s sad as hell tbh
Baby seals know what they’ve done
Metal straws are nice
Might get expensive to give one away with every drink
Yeah the last time I drank a can of coke it was crazy expensive. Like an entire dollar or some shit.
Wheat stalk straws are surprisingly good. Don’t need to wash them like metal and silicone ones.
Metal straws are annoying to clean. You can’t just put them in the dishwasher, but have to use more water washing by hand and need to buy a specific tool just for that.
But why are we using straws at all? Just say no
Because my teeth are going bad and straws help
Thats something I wasn’t aware of, but clearly there are medical needs. I’m still confident that’s a small minority.
You’re right that we need to stop trying to make things binary, like a blanket prohibition. But we should be able to just say no to casual use of single use plastic straws and the remaining exceptions are probably no big deal. It’s not the hundreds of thousands of medically useful single use plastic straws every day that are the problem. But the hundreds of millions, or billions, of casual use
some people’s necks don’t bend right. straws are a medical device
That’s where you’re going? Out of the billions of straws used every day, you’re concerned about the edge case where it’s medically useful? By all means go for the plastic single use. Medicine is a huge user of that and there’s no realistic alternative. Hospitals and nursing homes get universal exemptions. It’s also a tiny fraction of single use plastic straw waste.
can i interrupt your whine to remind you i answered your question
Thank you for interrupting our discussion of zebras where everything is striped black or white, by reminding us they’re striped light gray and dark gray
you wanted to know why people use them and “PFFF THATS AN EDGE CASE” do you feel this way about all disadvantaged groups or just the disabled?
it’s literally the edge case, and insignificant to the actual point being made. you excused like a few thousand uses of the straw, maybe. don’t excuse the thousands of metric tons thrown out every year
Yeah, but I’m terrible about carrying them with me
Start a cocaine or ketamine habit and you will always remember to have it on hand.
Do they have to be 3 feet long novelty straws?
I love my metal straws. Great for smoothies and milkshakes. They don’t collapse!
Just don’t trip
Always remember that coke and pepsi do not use recycled plastic in their coke or pepsi packaging, yet they are outwardly huge proponents of recycling the waste they create
Me switching to European cans of cola :3
if we reduced wealth inequality to the point noone could afford that kind of shit i bet we could ride the plastic straw wave for a few centuries before it really came back to bite us.
Oh totally. billionaires carbon footprint is many orders of magnitude larger than multiple lifetimes and generations of us normies. Abolish billionaires. Redistribute that wealth. The environmental future we want - NOW.
And yet, there aren’t very many of them but there are billions of us.
Even if their lifestyles result in 1000x as much pollution, they only represent 0.00004% of the worldwide population, which is not enough to move the needle.
To put that in perspective, metro Tokyo has a population of approximately 38 million. If the fraction of billionaires in Tokyo matches the global ratio, there would be about 15 billionaires in Tokyo. Anything 15 people do in Tokyo will be just noise compared to what the other 37,999,985 people do.
Let’s just pretend that all 3000 of the world’s billionaires lived in the USA. They’d still only make up 0.001% of the entire US population. Even if they were flying around in personal jets, being followed by Airbus Beluga jets carrying their yachts, it would still pale in comparison to the sheer number of people currently suffering in economy class right now.
I still think billionaires should be squashed by a hydraulic press, but I’m not kidding myself into thinking that doing that will have any impact on the environment at all. I support it more because they’re greedy assholes who are taking far more than their share, and who are using their immense wealth to distort the well functioning governing of the world.
I’m curious as to why you’re using a straw at all.
is it that because you’re at a restaurant?
You should know that by giving most restaurants your patronage, you are contributing to a lifestyle that we all cannot participate in.
What does this even mean?
I never had any issues with paper straws. Is it a skill issue?
I’ve definitely noticed paper straws come in different qualities, and are affected differently depending on what you’re drinking. But the ones that turn mushy were largely phased out of use because I’m sure a lot of people complained. I haven’t had a mushy straw in years.
I haven’t had a mushy straw in years.
Same and the great irony is that people use paper straws as an example of a minor change to stop climate change when billionaires fly around on jets outputting a ton of co2… but paper straws have nothing to do with co2 output or climate change… they are to reduce single use plastics polluting the environment…
Same.
The people I’ve noticed complain seem to buy giant drinks and let them sit around for a while.
Never been a fan of flat warm soft drinks myself.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
throws a Molotov at the next flying cruiser
Bruh if you so much as spit on said cruiser you’ll be wanted by the police for terrorism, despite the definition of terrorism being to threaten harm to civilians…
Before I submit, I want to clarify that I have read the UK Government’s definition of terrorism, and as it’s a stupid ass definition, I elected to ignore it.
“…as the use or threat of… …serious damage to property… …designed to influence the government… …for the purpose of advancing [an]… …ideological cause.”
As we know, taking the only route that ensures results and damaging property belonging to anyone, regardless of how many people will be saved, is against the legal law and punishable. HOWEVER, going back to their own law…
“…as the use or threat of… …serious violence against a person [OR] endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action) [OR] creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public… …which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to… …intimidate the public… …for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”
By their own law, any organisation intending to assist in the wilful and unprovoked violence against people, with explosives or firearms, is by their definition a terrorist. The disclaimer “other than that of the person committing the action” absolves anyone of the definition if they are doing so to stop the attacker. This defines the UK government and many companies as terrorists but the only reason this is not the case is because the government a) choose which laws to uphold and when, and b) defend their decision by lying that the Palestinian people were the instigators of their own eradication by the various countries of the world.
Sorry, I know this is just a meme
BORTLES!
