I’m still not convinced about this. I have known many teenagers who are more adept than me at making mature decisions (late 20s). So I think we all mature at different rates. I don’t especially believe that there’s a magic time in ones 20s where one becomes especially mature. And if there is, it is likely only a couple % higher in maturity points than at other times in one’s life.

Still, this magic 25 number appears a lot when people are trying to advocate for removing rights from young adults. Like for instance, saying trans people have to be at least 25 to transition. I’m always skeptical of it.

I also believe in the science. That’s why I don’t believe in the developed-at-25 myth. If you look it up online you can see it’s been widely rebuked. Here’s an article from the BBC for instance.

Apologies for the rudeness.

well, you just said the thing I said in reverse. I said, it’s not necessarily a bad thing; and you said: yes it is.

oh don’t tell me you believe in that debunked your-brain-is-fully-developed-at-25 pseudoscience.

I’ve never heard of this before. Where else is this the case?

it’s not necessarily a bad thing for parents to have more voting power than non-parents through this means. Parents would generally be voting with their children’s best interests in mind.

agreed. Just because something is unsustainable if everyone were to have limited mobility doesn’t mean it’s unsustainable.

I started using LeechBlock to limit the amount of time spent on social media including lemmy, it’s been really helpful. Inspired by this video. Has helped me.

Reminder to everyone, you can downvote bad memes. No offense to the OP, but I don’t think it’s good optics to have this kind of highly questionable content.

Side note: I gather “singer” must be the author’s signature, but it sure looks like the criminal is being identified as a singer for some reason.

Somebody (@Jhex) else posted that there is apparently research giving some creedence to this.

But I agree, this meme is death-spiral-cult level. It’s for fellow anti-car folks to commiserate, but it’s probably net negative overall to post memes like this since they can be easily mocked by carbrainers.

Jevons paradox?

oh interesting. This was hard for me to see. I wonder about the car that’s stopped in the road, though. Did he really go measure it?

Edit: also, the high up on the side of the house

How was this measured?

The rationale being that we would have more trees if we didn’t have so many roads?

It’s not my fault if somebody makes content at a loss and isn’t able to recuperate their losses. It happens all the time, sucks for them. I mean that earnestly by the way, though it sounds callous – it really does suck for them, and I feel bad for artists who can’t turn a profit.

However, I just don’t agree with you that “objective harm” is done when one pirates media. If this were true, you must admit that it’s equally objectively harmful to the IP holder for one to not consume media at all. I just don’t see how you can square that.

I think we’re all familiar with weaponized legal language. Unauthorized reproduction sounds scarier to most of us than piracy.

Real pirates steal stuff. So-called digital “piracy” isn’t piracy at all. This is just propaganda for the business model that the establishment is trying to hold onto.

It doesn’t hurt IP holders to “pirate” their data. It is no difference to them whether you were to pirate it or to have never been born at all in the first place. Their profit is the exact same either way. Their business model is imaginary and they want to force it on everyone else.

My point is we can’t stop fighting for the environment and throw it under the bus just because AI is the new threat of the day.

100% agree. However, I don’t think AI is a serious environmental threat. It’s a threat for other reasons.

Yeah I agree that AI is going to kill us, but I don’t think it’s the environmental impact from AI that is a serious concern. Google’s numbers are that their water usage is equivalent to 55 golf courses (there are nearly 1k golf courses in california) – that’s their whole company, not just AI. And as for power usage, they’re about equal to the city of Toronto – that’s a lot, but they’re already building nuclear power plants, so that seems like a net positive for environmental impact to me. We won’t need to burn coal if they are selling bone-aching ad-driven nuclear power as a side hustle on their AI business. (I’m speculating they would do this, but it seems like something they’d do.) I hate ads but I’ll take ads over fossil fuels.

I most likely hate AI as much as you do, so you know, I am not stubbornly resistant to the idea that they might be bad for the environment. This is just what my research indicates, that they’re not a serious environmental concern. You can change my mind if you have a different perspective – I mean this earnestly. I’m all ears.

I don’t know of anyone out there who opposes AI for purely environmental reasons but approves of its societal impact. I could be wrong. But I think a lot of us don’t really believe that it has much impact on the environment. The numbers are quantifiable – and it’s pretty small compared to other things. It could become a problem with exponential growth, but like, is it that big a deal if we end up with nuclear power? And all the water being used as coolant comes from, say, Virginia, where as I understand it they have no dearth of water and that’s where most of the datacentres are being built?

I’m not saying that the it being soulless slop is a hard fact. I’m saying the whole fuck-ai crowd agrees on this, as do I. But I don’t think we all agree about the environmental impact being a serious concern (since the evidence for this is, in my view, questionable; and I suspect this is the opinion of others here as well.)