Really? Every single item is wrapped in plastic at your grocery store? No loose apples, cucumbers, potatoes, or leafy greens?
If those are all wrapped in plastic, then look for what options have less plastic. Avoid double wrapped items, for example, or anything marketed as single servings.
I feel like none of this is that hard to come up with. It’s unfortunate you don’t seem interested in an actual conversation. Hope you have a better rest of your day.
You should blame them and still choose options with less plastic where possible? I don’t see where this idea of black and white, one or the other comes from
Where it’s feasible given your financial and geographical means, avoid food wrapped in plastics, foods shipped from far away, and meats. Not every single item in the store comes in plastic. It will require adjusting your habits, for sure.
No need to demonize anyone for not being able to if it doesn’t work, but every time you choose something better, it’s an incremental step forward.
At the same time, send an email or phone call to the grocery store manager. Write to your local politician and push for laws regarding stricter use of plastics, more comprehensive recycling programs, or funding and grants for local farmers.
Simply being angry online and not changing your own habits or lobbying for change isn’t actually improving anything.
Not the person above, but Corporations are built around the idea of selling something. The biggest way to reduce your environmental impact is to not buy shit. Doesn’t matter if the shit is eco friendly, more shit means more emissions.
Corporations don’t pollute for shits and giggles. They pollute because they want to make stuff for us to buy. Shell doesn’t just make pollution, they pollute on the way to producing gas.
If we cut back on how much gas we use, Shell pollutes less because they have less gas to sell.
That doesn’t absolve Shell of their role in chasing profits over environmental protection, and there’s plenty of space for demanding better and holding them accountable, but acting like these corps pollute just cuz is disingenuous. They pollute because we want shit.
EVs make a difference for anyone in an area with low density. I live in the country relatively close to population centres, but it’s impossible for me to ever imagine transit being even near me.
We will literally always have a need for small, individual vehicles of some kind for most the population. If we could reduce that to one car, then supplement with transit, where available, or carpooling? Then also make that car an EV instead of ICE? That’s a huge emissions reduction
The term has been trademarked since 1995 for different uses. This isn’t anything new and there’s no signs they intend to use it aggressively. https://trademarks.justia.com/856/81/cyberpunk-85681741.html
Pretty sure they bought the trademark from the company who owned it previous (for a 1980s era board game if I recall correctly). They bought it to prevent shitty 2077 clones with the same name from popping up. I haven’t heard of them actively pursuing copyright infringement against others who use cyberpunk.
I can speak to this as I’m just going through it now.
I’m a young male in good health. I started having weird heart palpitations randomly starting last year. Had them four times, but they normally go away after 20ish mins. GP reviewed me, said it seemed fine, but to go in to ER if anything about them changed (ie more frequent, more intense, lasted longer).
Last friday they went on for an hour, so I went in. Entered at 11am.
Was triaged within 15mins, including an ECG. Once they confirmed it wasn’t an active heart attack, I sat in the waiting room for two hours. I then saw a doctor, got a chest X-Ray, and bloodwork taken within 45mins. I proceeded to sit in the room hooked up to the vitals monitor for four hours while they ran my bloodwork, and the ER doc came back. He sent me a requisition for a cardiologist and told me to take aspirin until I saw the specialist.
I saw the Cardiologist on Wednesday, and he’s explained he’s not concerned given my lack of other risk factors. He’s now sent me over for an ultrasound and 36hr halter monitor next Monday. He said unless something weird comes back or he wants another test, he won’t see me again, and I should follow up with my GP 2 weeks after I finish the halter monitor.
So within 3 or 4 weeks I had a full range of tests done, and my biggest expense was $7.50 parking for the 30min cardiologist appointment, which I was actually unironically complaining about to my wife last night.
Ehh, reading the article makes it clear that the farmer fucked up.
Best case, he gave it a thumbs up to show he read it and then forgot to ever follow up or reject the contract. However it seems like he had previously accepted and executed contracts via text, which reduces this likelihood.
Worst case, he did the thumbs up to show he agreed to it, and now is trying to back out either because he can’t make the deadline, or because the price of it has shot up.
Neither case is great for the farmer. Contracts can be made from whatever form - verbal contracts are perfectly acceptable, so I’m not sure why people are freaking out about this. If he had said “Agreed”, or “yes” in response to the text then that would be taken as confirmation of the contract too.
I’ve got the 2021 Kona EV and while you do lose range in the winter, it’s more like 100km/450km. That’s with intense grip heavy winter tires and the heater running. In Ontario, so regularly ran it with -35c temps. It’s cold and you lose some range, but not 400miles out of a 700mile range
Which is exactly this - the bad thing is to pull the lever and kill two extra people. It’s not as bad for you, like in the prisoners dilemma, since they’re not known to you. The best thing for all is for no one to pull a lever and you each lose one loved one rather than all your loved ones.
People who go hunting don’t go by “off the top of their head”.
Now I can’t speak to the laws in California for hunting, but in Canada they have pretty crazy strict laws regarding illegal hunting, including seizure of anything used in the act (trucks, atvs, guns, boats, etc), removal of gun license, and huge fines.
A quick google search shows the method they’ve used, and have been using for the last decade as an attempt to stop the spread: Barred owls are much more aggressive, and playing their calls can lure them in to fight, in a way the spotted owls don’t, so you don’t need to just go based on visual differences. Here’s one article about the removal process up to now with an interview of a biologist who’s pro-hunting.
Relocation of the barred owls isn’t feasible, because no matter where you send them, there’s probably already owls there, and relocation often results in the animal dying off anyway.
What’s the alternative? Watch as the spotted owls are out-competed and go extinct due to human development and habitat destruction? To me, that seems worse. We already hunt to maintain populations of animals in other species - deer spring to mind. Since we’ve eliminated many of the deer’s predators, we need to maintain that role, which includes setting hunting targets each year. Why are these owls different?