Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 21

>when you do it it's "sustainable"
>But if 2 billion Chinese and Indians do it "it's a disaster"

There's a vast difference between the way developed nations treat the environment and the way the third world does.

>entitled much?

It isn't entitlement that prevents us from creating massive heaps of burning trash children have to dig through, with toxic metals allowed to leach into the water table and plumes of carcinogenic smoke allowed fill the sky and choke the country. But I can see why someone with a third-world mindset would be spiteful of nations that are able to protect their people and prevent those conditions.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 21

>coming from the "rich Western countries".

Why do you put quotes around "rich Western countries" in that context? Do you doubt that that's a real thing? If you are implying there's no distinction between rich western countries and the third world, you're not capable of analyzing the argument any further.

>Consumer culture is unsustainable.

Unlimited growth in unsustainable. Consumption and disposal are sustainable. The question is at what point does consumption and disposal become unsustainable or too harmful to warrant it.

>Those mountains of e-waste

Your implied argument is fallacious: there's no reason e-waste must necessarily be thrown into a heap and burned and the runoff leached into the water table and the meager proceeds used to fund the exponential growth of the third world population, etc.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 21

CO2 emissions aren't the threat to the environment. Billions of people dumping endless chemicals and trash and breeding out of control while making massive scrap heaps of ewaste and burning it, etc., is the threat. The rich Western countries with their replacement rate birth rates (or below) are sustainable.

Comment Re:OpenAI (Score 1) 41

>Also, out of curiosity, how are we defining "rapidly sinking?"

The way everyone else does: GPT-5 is two years late and led to a "$19.6B pivot;" they tried and failed to buy Windsurf, leading Google to scoop up Windsurf's AI talent instead; their models are mogged by actually open models; the whole Altman coup and losing much of the board in public drama (Ilya, Murati); Meta has humiliated them and poached dozens of their top people; and Microsoft and OpenAI are having their falling out.

> they are otherwise still basically top of the pack.

Not really, no

Comment Re:human safari (Score -1) 265

>But the difference is that on the Ukrainian side atrocities are the exception, while on the Russian side they're standard operating procedure.

False, not from what I've seen.

>I mean there's literally videos of Russians shooting their own soldiers for the crime of retreating from certain death in human wave assaults.

True

>You just did.

"I know you are but what am I." The level of discourse and comprehension I'd expect from someone with an opinion as uninformed as your own.

Comment Re:human safari (Score -1) 265

Browse X or 4chan and you'll get all the clips you want, like in /chug. Both sides are doing it, but my point is OP is retarded for only blaming "Russian orcs." Also nothing of what you said excuses the war crimes I'm referring to, especially executing POWs for sport.

>soldiers who signed up

lol. Tell me you know nothing about the war without saying you know nothing about the war

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nuclear war would really set back cable." - Ted Turner

Working...