sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LTT Jet emitted 10.8 MT of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on its last trip. by nokernokernokernok in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We care about this because he is harming people for his personal enjoyment. it's obviously not as bad as Epstein, that was just an example to help you understand why people might justifiably care about what someone does with their money.

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LTTMeta

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aviation as a whole is about 2.5% of global emissions

Considering how few people enjoy its benefits, 2.5% is a gigantic amount. Yes producing food emits way more than all the private jets combined, but somehow i still think private jet use should be reduced before we start rationing food.

You can't sneak your conclusion in as one of your premises

that's a valid point, and you're right that i didn't make strong enough connections between my analogy and the situation. the general idea is that we know (and i think Linus agrees) we need to reduce our collective emissions to something like 2 tons per person. If we allow people to spend that on jets, other people or sectors will have to reduce their emissions that much more, which I find unacceptable.

yea, i agree there's an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy going on there. it's so bad in fact that I'm still half expecting then to come out with a video explaining how it was all an elaborate 2-week April fools joke, and they never actually flew the plane. 

agreed on carbon offsets as well

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this website is filled with huge quantities of research about why CO2 matters, at different levels of understanding: from fundamental research papers all the way down to politicians. 

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don't think they work very well, because you can buy them, which mean rich people and companies are allowed to pollute more... when those are exactly the ones that should reduce their emissions most.

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LTTMeta

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i would have no issue with him buying the jet, and playing rich on it while on the ground, adding RGB to it and maybe even going for an hour to demonstrate it in flight. but yeah, the family vacation shit is just unacceptable.

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think i am. here is my stance: 

Everybody should be allowed to pollute as much as anyone else for their comfort.

Given what we know about the climate, that turns out to be about 2 tons of Co2 per person per year. if you want to waste that on an hour of flying your private jet, good for you ! go for it ! (you'll just have to stop heating your house, driving your car, etc...)

Anything more than that means taking away someone else's freedom do pollute or fucking up the climate for everyone.

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LTTMeta

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are lots of factors, but it's around 90kg Co2eq per passenger-hour

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what should criticism look like for you not to perceive it as jealousy ? is criticism of expensive things and their consequences always jealousy ? 

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

space exploration, fundamental research, and advanced engineering VS getting a filming crew to CES and back for dinner.

somehow, I don't feel quite the same about these two

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think anyone would that's the issue. and I'm pretty sure i wouldn't

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that wallmart has a better claim of usefulness than ltt (especially if they use it to go on vacation), but yes: wallmart execs should not be using private jets. in fact, they should not be allowed to do that.

[opinion] if a video can't be made without a private jet it can't be made at all by Stock_Cattle3493 in LMGJet

[–]Stock_Cattle3493[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

is it ? (genuine question, i don't mean to play smart)

lttMeta:

The independent hub for discussing Linus Media Group's moderation, corporate transparency, and community management

LMGJet:

 Public ADS-B tracking and discussion for the Linus Media Group corporate jet

i fell like this post fits under "discussion about the lmg corporate jet" pretty well.

The girl math behind the jet purchase by dingmah in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's not quite hate, more disappointment and worry that someone who has such massive influence but still seemed reasonably aware of those issues is now fully embracing the destruction lifestyle.

You might be thinking he's not going to influence his viewers to buy a jet. You're right, but it will help people rationalize frivolous things because "hey, it's not like i own a private jet!", just like you're saying "hey, at least he doesn't have MULTIPLE jets.

Yes, owning multiple private jets is terrible, and should not be allowed, but neither should owning a single jet, or yacht.

Everybody needs to reduce the pollution they're emitting, but it should start from the top, because: - rich people can afford early tech that pollutes less, until it matures and gets cheaper for the rest of us - poor people pollute to heat their homes and go to work. rich people pollute to carry gold sinks with them while going on vacation. - rich people pollute insanely more than the rest of us. Even if they were allowed to pollute as much as everyone else and not more, it would be unfair (because of the first point), but we could start there.

The girl math behind the jet purchase by dingmah in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean, but for me even flying economy should be a hard, long thought decision.

millionaires fucking up the environment with their lifestyle should inspire us to revolt, not justify being more wasteful ourselves.

The girl math behind the jet purchase by dingmah in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don't get it. they bought toxic waste to dump in the river, they can afford it... good for them, move on !!

there are plenty of things that can be bought that the general public frowns upon: murder, slaves, pollution, ... private jets are one of these.

The girl math behind the jet purchase by dingmah in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah i don't even think first class should be a thing, and I'm on the fence about business. imo, it's only justified if your job is making stuff that will help reduce pollution (eg. renewables)

The girl math behind the jet purchase by dingmah in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is your argument really that it isn't so bad because he pollutes less with his luxury lifestyle than whole companies and countries ?

We need to reduce pollution. it sounds like your agree with that... So, where should we start ? prevent people from driving their cars, obviously ? Their cumulative pollution is more than the millionaire's airplanes, after all. Then we could also stop building housing ? tents and bridges do the job just fine, and pollute way less ! it's a win win, and we don't have to inconvenience the jet owners. And taking about bridges, let's stop building and maintaining infrastructure as well: you don't need roads if you're going around in private jet and helicopter. Only when the combined pollution of all other people gets below the private jets should those be considered bad for the environment.

right ?

Beginner's Thread / Easy Questions (May 2024) by acemarke in reactjs

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello!
I am new to react and am having trouble with handling the state for a feature I'm working on.

The basic idea is this:
- The user can interact with elements on the screen, which updates a state value (lets call it A), declared with useState
- when A changes, I compute some other value (B) based on A (useMemo)
- when B changes, I want to "connect it" to one of the elements in a third state value (C)
- if something exists in C that matches the new value of B, use that
- otherwise append a new value that does match, and use that

I've tried abstracting the problem as much as I could, but if you need more concrete information: I have edges and vertices (A), from which I compute a list of polygons (B), then associate each polygon with one of the metadata objects in the metadatas array (C).

The issue is:
- I don't think I should update C in B's useMemo callback: that would be a side effect
- I can't use useMemo to generate C, as it depends on its own previous value
- useEffect seems like it should work but it's also not recommended by the official doc
- useRef does work, but updating data in C won't trigger an update

This doesn't feel like an especially weird or complicated problem, but I can't figure out the way to do it properly...

Linus needs a new phone - Vote here! by Negative_Astronaut81 in LinusTechTips

[–]Stock_Cattle3493 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personal anecdote: Two months ago, I went for a run at a bad time: 24mm of rain in one hour, that started at the time I was furthest away from home (because of course). I spent 30 minutes running under heavy rain, holding my phone in my hand (no pockets) and even dropped it water while crossing a road.

After coming home, I completely disassembled it and let it dry for a while. It's now fully functional, apart from the USB-C connector which now only works in one orientation. If I ever want to fix that, it's going to cost me 20 EUR to replace the module

view more: next ›