The 0.8/kg is quite well documented, not just a single source.

Ok even looking at market prices of uranium, around $80/kg, Niger is still selling at 100 times cheaper than market rates to france. That is ridiculous.

People keep blaming Russia as if Africans are somehow incapable of making their own decisions. The reality is Africans are tired of French neo colonialism. Niger is a perfect example. They were selling france uranium for $0.8/kg when the market price is $200. That’s Niger’s resources going to power French power plants, while the people of Niger are struggling to survive. Fuck that shit.

Real estate

This happened in India. Right wing nut, sure, but probably not Christian.

Fuck the opposition, we are better off with the current government.

Ronald, not Ron. No nicknames in Florida until he gets a signed form from his mom permitting him to use Ron.

Not being paranoid about some imaginary evil? It’s actually great. You should try it instead of making enemies of shit that don’t matter.

Seeing that you are angry enough that you are willing to destroy private propertyto impose your own paranoid beliefs on others, you should try it, it might help your mental health.

If people paid me to, I absolutely would. As long as i get some benefit in return, I don’t care for privacy.

Because you haven’t actually explained what makes it evil. Just claimed that it is. Also using a slippery slope argument is always a sign of bs.

Why is less privacy inherently evil of the people giving up their privacy is doing so willingly and don’t care for it?

Why is surveillance inherently evil? Secondly if other people don’t care about this, who are you to deny them what they consider a convenience and don’t have a problem with? What gives you a right to impose your beliefs on others?

If you don’t like it, don’t use it. It’s extremely presumptuous to assume your extent views on this matter is the only right view to the point you think it’s ok to enforce that view on everyone else.

I just don’t subscribe to the slippery slope arguments I am provided when it comes to privacy. I and I suspect most other people just prefer convenience to some hypothetical threat to what I am not sure.

I would probably use it. Sounds convenient, don’t have to take out my phone or wallet.

I keep hearing this but my company uses teams and I rarely if ever have any issues. Could it just be a configuration thing?

Yet there are still arguing that this is not a big deal, even here on lemmy. Sigh

This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It’s confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don’t even know where to start.

Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.

I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.

I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.

Well that’s part of their value prop, their games. Clearly it’s working as it got you to purchase a switch when you don’t really like the concept.