Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Sort
Coming soon

Easy Solution: Recycle More

see more

Recycling isn't always that easy. And it usually isn't competitive to use recycled materials unless there are subsidies or regulation that makes it expensive not to recycle stuff. Most Western countries have recycling rates below 50% despite decades of promoting recycling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_rates_by_country

Die ausführliche Begründung lässt sich dann übrigens mit "Aber die anderen!1!!" zusammenfassen.

see more

Haben die noch nicht von den anderen Rechten gesteckt bekommen, dass man bei Erwähnung des Nationalsozialimus sofort reflexartig zu behaupten hat, dass die Nazis doch Linksextreme gewesen wären?

265 points · 1 day ago

The law ordering this dates back to 1998. Because she shared images offensive to minors she has to submit to this as would any other french citizen accused of the same thing. Kinda baffling that she, as a lawyer, doesn't seem to know about a law that, while not recent, is not obscur at all.

see more

The most likely explanation is that it was a strategic move to give the position she expressed in the tweet more exposure. If Le Pen says something provocative, it's usually not in the media for a long time because it's expected for her to say such things.

If she however breaks a law doing so and is prosecuted over it, there are constant updates to the case the press will report on. Those reports always bring the tweet that broke the law back into the spotlight. Free publicity.

In addition, she can claim victimhood and feed the far-right victim complex, so the harsher the penalty the better for her. Total win-win situation for her, so it was a wise move to deliberately break the law there. Her father is an expert at that, too.

It would be slightly less morally reprehensible if they did that. I say slightly, because they tend to go after the most endangered species.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 21 hours ago

What if they fed the rest of the shark to pigs?

161 points · 4 days ago

Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Greece, Spain, Poland, Portugal are all lower then Japan. Italy/Hungary has same as Japan.

The difference isn't really birthrate, but rather immigration.

see more
150 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

Yep. Most people in developed countries have fewer children as wealth/education increases.

Most countries make up for this by allowing immigration from developing countries.

Japan doesn't want to do that... So instead they're working on robot caretakers for their elderly, lol.

see more

Japan doesn't want to do that

They're starting to change their position.

http://politheor.net/japan-is-opening-its-door-to-migrants/

In June the government announced it would create a “designated skills” visa in order to accept 500,000 new workers by 2025, specifically in agriculture, construction, hospitality, nursing and shipbuilding.

27 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

South Korea probably has even fewer immigrants than Japan. The most important factor is how long ago the fertility rate has started to drop. In 1960, Japan was at a fertility around 2.0 already while South Korea was still around 6.0. Even around 1980 South Korea's fertility rate hadn't dropped below 3.0 yet.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=JP-KR

That's why the median age of South Korea's population is still 6 years younger than that of Japan's population despite their fertility rate having been significantly below Japan's for the last 20 years.

I'm not making that argument. JP McBride at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories is. Take it up with him.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

No, they're not. If you think they did, you didn't understand it or you're trying to mislead people intentionally.

The scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

It's about exposure levels outside to a plant under normal operation. Not a comparison between coal ash and spent nuclear fuel rods

The sentence you're quoting has been corrected by the author by the way to avoid the very misunderstanding you're pretending to have fallen for. That you're quoting the misleading old version that isn't even part of the article anymore shows that you're not participating in this discussion in earnest. I guess you're proud of that trick, but I find it rather sad you'd have to resort to that. I'll stop responding now.

The sentence you're quoting has been corrected by the author by the way to avoid the very misunderstanding you're pretending to have fallen for.

Yeah. That's why I used the corrected statement, you incorrect, dismissive twat.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 3 days ago

You did indeed. Apologies for that false accusation.

Load more comments

1.2k points · 4 days ago

So, she apparently had something else to do in the same building and also stopped by to greet the couple. Not as amazing as showing up out of nowhere but still very cool of her to take the time to meet them.

see more

Not as amazing, but also not as arbitrary. Stopping by at a random wedding would be too obviously a PR stunt.

149 points · 4 days ago

Fellow guest Hayley Fitzpatrick added: "All of a sudden the Queen and Prince Philip were there in front of us. I was so surprised I knocked something over - she looked at me and asked if I was okay.”

lol

I didn't understand everything Macron said there, but the tone and body language seemed very dismissive and aloof, borderline rude.

He may be correct in his assessment that the guy could find a temporary job in the service industry, but that type of condescending response is not gonna help his already waning popularity.

-19 points · 4 days ago · edited 4 days ago

Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERFdnqLHMg

He speaks English better than Trump does, and I see nothing wrong with tone or body language.

see more

I'm talking specifically about the video the article is about:

https://twitter.com/arthurberdah/status/1041238948759183360

223 points · 5 days ago · edited 4 days ago

In the UK support for male victims of abuse is almost non existent, in fact all areas of support for males is worryingly low.

They are an afterthought in the system and I think the support that is available is by and large charities run by volunteers, I don’t even know of publicly(government)funded organizations to help these people.

I hope to be proven wrong.

see more

There are 78 domestic violence shelters in the UK that are open to men, 20 are for men only. It's not enough, but there is support.

7 points · 4 days ago

But do they accept men with children? The shelter in my area (not the UK) has separate spaces designated for men only, women only and women with kids. There is no space for men with children. And in many places in the US, if parents are found living on the street with their kids, authorities will take the children away.

see more

From the ManKind charity:

In the United Kingdom, the charity believes there are just 19 organisations offering refuge or safe house provision for male victims in the UK - a total of 78 spaces. Of these only 20 spaces are dedicated to male DV victims (the rest being for victims of either gender). Seven of these places cannot accommodate men with children.

Load more comments

554 points · 5 days ago

4:38 mile pace. That’s absolute insanity. Most people could not keep up with this pace for even a quarter mile let alone 26.2 of them.

see more

For comparison:

Paavo Nurmi who was nicknamed "The Flying Finn" ran the mile in 4:10 when he broke the world record for the 1 mile distance in 1923.

It wasn't until 1967 that the women's world record for the 1 mile distance was below 4:38.

51 points · 5 days ago

They also had a draft car.

see more

The car was far enough ahead to make little difference in terms of aerodynamics.

Load more comments

0 points · 5 days ago

I guess he dos have a point though? If all the hurricanes until Puerto Rico use a deathtoll as a count by the local adminstration, but then in PR they have, suddenly some kind of completely different methodology including indirect death increases not used in any previous weather incident. And we are just supposed to accept the conclusions from those numbers without raising any eyebrows? That is a legitimate argument, I dont understand why people dismiss it of the bat.

If you change your methodology for death counts you should review all previous recent weather incident death counts or utherwise you cant draw any conclusions from whether it was handled well or not compared to previous incidents.

see more

The disaster in Puerto Rico was different from other catastrophes in that people could not easily be evacuated to regions unaffected by the Hurricane. So any comparison of the death toll with other hurricanes would be flawed anyway.

If one did review the death toll for Katrina for example in order to follow the same more comprehensive methodology, it looks like it would not work in Trump's favour. The Louisiana state government for example did investigate excess deaths in the Greater New Orleans Area following Katrina and found that there was no significant increase compared to before Katrina. The 50% increase in deaths that had initially been reported could not be confirmed.

So, the conclusion of following the same arguably more comprehensive methodology and then comparing the death toll would be that Maria caused a lot more deaths than Katrina, so it should be seen as the greater tragedy. However, as I said before, that would be flawed as one could have hardly evacuated all of Puerto Rico to mainland US.

5 points · 5 days ago · edited 5 days ago

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from wealthy countries/citizens

This is just blatantly false

China in 2015 by itself is responsible for 29.51% of the CO2 emissions of the entire world, India 6.81%, Russia 4.88%, Iran 1.76%, Indonesia 1.39%, Brazil 1.35%, Mexico 1.31%, South Africa 1.16%, Turkey 0.99%, Thailand 0.77%. Together that list makes up 49.93% of the world's CO2 emissions, which is within rounding error, and more than likely in 2018 the list represents more than the majority of the emissions.

BRIC countries alone represent 42.55% of the World's CO2 emissions, but as a share of world gdp they only represent 22.21% (China 15.06%, India 2.84%, Brazil 2.45%, Russia 1.86%)

In contrast US 14.24%, EU 9.62%, Japan 3.47%, South Korea 1.71%, Canada 1.54%, and Australia 1.24% are responsible for only 31.8% of emissions but responsible for more than 57.24% of the world economy (US 24.66%, Japan, 5.97%, Germany 4.59%, UK 3.93%, France 3.31%, Italy 2.49%, Canada 2.11%, South Korea 1.88%, Australia 1.83%, Spain 1.63%, Netherlands 1.03%, Sweden 0.68%, Poland 0.65%, Belgium 0.62%, Norway 0.53%, Austria 0.52%, Denmark 0.41%, Ireland 0.40%, I did not add the rest of the EU countries to the total economy share)

Therefore the "rich" countries represent less than a third of the emissions but more than half the world's economy, where as the BRIC countries represent 2/5 the world's emissions while only being 1/5 of the economy. If more countries start following the BRIC countries to get rich, we are all fucking screwed.

Source (2015): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Source (2015): https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gdp_share/

It isn't a question of rich countries polluting a lot, and poor countries not polluting, it is a question of counries with piss poor environmental policies like the USA, Canada and Australia with car centric transportation models and China with no environmental regulations vs countries with environmentally conscious policies. Its true that GDP per capita in the USA, Canada, and Australia is higher than China, but China has higher emissions per capita than rich countries that don't use cars as much.

Hong Kong is over 5 times richer than the rest of china (Hong Kong is even richer per capita than the UK), and yet it has less emissions per capita than China.

China has greater CO2 emissions PER CAPITA (7.6) in metric tonnes than Ireland (7.6), New Zealand (7.6), Austria (7.4), the UK (7.1), Denmark (6.8), Hong Kong (6.3), Iceland (6.1), Italy (5.7), Spain (5.1), France (5.0), Switzerland (5.0), Sweden (4.6)

Source (2013, its probably even worse for China now):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_[tonnes]_per_capita

see more

China has higher emissions per capita than rich countries that don't use cars as much.

I think you are under a serious misunderstanding there. The transport sector is responsible for a tiny proportion of China's carbon emissions. The carbon emissions of China mostly come from coal power used mostly for the industrial sector and from the industrial sector itself. That industrial sector mostly produces goods for Western consumers.

Now the question is: Who is responsible for these emissions? The producer of the product or the consumer of the product? Ultimately it is the consumer who has to change. After all, if the producer decides not to produce it anymore that doesn't stop another producer to fill the gap and satisfy the demand. If the consumer stops demanding the product, it will cease to be produced.

Source for the graph: https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/China%20Carbon%20Emissions%202016%20final%20web.pdf

294 points · 6 days ago

This tldr makes it sound like the genealogist declared himself the rightful heir.

see more
116 points · 6 days ago

Yup, that's quite misleading. The sentence that is missing between the two paragraphs clears it up:

John Michael Baillie-Hamilton Buchanan, 60, who owns Cambusmore Estate near Callander, has been accepted as head of the clan thanks to the work of genealogist Hugh Peskett.

Online harassment unfortunately is just something everybody will experience these days so that doesnt really bother me. What bothers me is that more than half of these women get confronted face to face, What the fuck is wrong with people.

see more
224 points · 6 days ago

Online harassment unfortunately is just something everybody will experience these days so that doesnt really bother me.

There are different levels though. The level of harassment that many women face as part of their job simply due to being visible online is not comparable to angry responses one gets when saying something controversial on Facebook.

Assume a 4chan troll reads something a journalist wrote online and it makes him furious. Then at the end of the article it says who wrote it. You can't tell me it doesn't make a difference whether the name he reads is John Smith or Emily Youssef. It should be quite obvious that one of those two will get harassment on an entirely different level with pretty much anything they write.

50 points · 6 days ago

You can't tell me it doesn't make a difference whether the name he reads is John Smith or Emily Youssef.

Of course the name matters, because an internet troll custom tailors his bait to get the largest reaction.

Women get rape threats because it's a guaranteed hit. Same reason why they go for the n-word right off the bat, completely low effort on their part but guaranteed to get a reaction every single time.

see more

It doesn't really matter why almost all women who dare venture into online activities are harassed over their gender. Whatever the reason is, that outcome is very detrimental to society and completely unacceptable.

Load more comments

u/green_flash
Karma
903,397
Cake day
May 30, 2012
Moderator of these communities
r/worldnews

19,516,803 subscribers

Trophy Case (9)
Six-Year Club

Well-rounded

2018-08-12

reddit gold

Since July 2018

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.