• 1 Post
  • 61 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • vapeloki@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldAds
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I am with you regarding the big ones. But what about smaller media outlets and journalists to try to make a living on their own ? We need them. More then the big ones. Then the solution is to just ignore all the big ones and read the smaller ones. With ads or paying for it.



  • vapeloki@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldAds
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We didn’t care. We were the hosting provider nor the news outlets. But we had close contact to our customers. And a lot of the smaller customers had a hard time to even survive. The primary source of income was print until paywals came around. Some customers never had print and had to close down with the surge of ad blockers


  • vapeloki@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldAds
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    2 months ago

    That is true and false. Adblock plus takes money for the acceptable afs program, yes. But there are clear guidelines about the ads. Containing criteria for privacy, size in relation to content and more.

    I work in IT for 20 years now. Half this time my salary was paid for by ads:

    My company hosted big german news outlets. All money they made online was from ads.

    More adblockers meant less income so their required more ads just to come out without losing money.

    ABP tried to break this cycle.

    Now we are having paywals, and paywal breakers. And at this point this is outright stealing.

    If adblockers would allow ads that adhere to the acceptable ads criteria, the world would be a better place. Less paywals, less ads and maybe some companies would pay their employees a little bit more.


  • We are leasing our cars.

    Regarding the feel: The car does feel surprisingly light. Besides his 2.2 metric tons.

    At least here in Europe, the Tesla superchargers work with the car.

    Not sure if this generation is already available in the US. I am german, so BMW is a natural choice ;).

    Currently, BMW is using the same base for combustion and electric cars to safe costs ans be more flexible how to fit the chassis. That may be a reason for the success.

    Nor sure how the price in the US is, the list price for my nearly fully equipped i5 is around 90k€. The only thing I am missing is the pneumatic dampeners. They come only with red or blue breaks, and company policy does not allow for “racing looks”.










  • I don’t compare your footprint to anything. Also I am not arguing that our debate here is a risk to the planet.

    I am just saying that without airplanes, many things would be not possible. And that includes solar and Wind energy btw.

    I am well aware how large the co2 footprint of an airplane is. But if I have the choice between banning all airplanes and green energy, my choice is clear.

    And here is the core of the issue, and this is btw a very generell issue:

    We are such dependent on things like airplanes, trucks and cars, thar we can not force a complete ban without risking other important stuff.

    I work in IT. I am fighting constantly to reduce power consumption, for self sufficient data centers and advocate against large scale AI, because the power consumption is massiv and the raw resources for GPU damage the environment from gathering through production.

    And one of the most paradox things I encountered is a customer that does climate change research and tries to find more ways to combat it. And they asked for an offer with over 200 GPU’s.

    And based on this experience, my rough calculations for an average lemmy instance gives me about 2 metric tons co2/year. But is this bad? We are using this to discuss topics like these, organize protest, and if course for fun.

    I know the following is a stupid argument, but stick with me for a second.

    Based on your criteria we could shut down 90% of all instances. That would save us around 40 tons co2 per year.

    So, if we isolate this it looks good, right?

    But: a flight from Frankfurt to Heathrow wit a 747 alone produces around 70 tons of co2.

    So, it is all a question of perspective. And I am completely with you >70% of all flights should be just forbidden. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to fly from Germany to Italy. Use the fucking train.

    But how about USA? There is no train in this direction. So, while I am all for reducing flights as much as we can, we still have to keep some passenger planes.

    And for fright, we may be dependent for stuff that must be delivered quickly and is sensible to environmental conditions. Like parts for solar panels.