bratcomplex

9 ms·

31.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Partially beacuuse the us housing market is a ponzie scream. it cost more money on infrastructure maintenance that the total tax revenue of the building. so we use growth sprawl to cover the cost.. so ya up it goes.
32.
America Bankrupted Its Cities – The Growth Ponzi Scheme(youtube.com)
2 points by bratcomplex 6y ago|0 comments
33.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
“ Turning to more industrialization seems like a cop-out instead of real (hard) solutions: change of consumption habits, organic farming, strong environmental laws and so on.” This. I used to carry the view that going to a full industrial
34.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
some quick searching, it’s looking maybe not so little https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-...
35.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Only when you are actually better off. isn’t there a crossover point between the outside market needing/paying for electricity and mining? Or is mining the most effective return in all cases?
36.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Definitely. meat balls was a step back
37.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
actually no, they don’t. drive train wise the have less fun enough. Resolver and current sensor.
38.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Cuss no one gives a shit. People get in a Tesla and feel like a million bucks.
39.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
I think something that is completely missed by the industry that comma dose quite well in comparison, is driver monitoring. sure self driving cars is the engineering end goal. But really we aren't we trying to cut fatalities? Good driv
40.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Because the end result user experience is better +ota ?
41.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Not exactly. Elon made an offer to geo to make a better mobile eye. some work was done, geo wasn’t okay with the deal. But he was still interested in the problem so he forumd comma
42.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
seasoned tree planter here. It’s mostly bullshit. most lots that are dedicated to ecological “reforestation “ are usually clear cut 20 years down the line. and yes generally no more than 5 species of trees are planted. Plot density is chose
43.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Yes. But this shows the limitations of of carbon offsets. carbon is fungible, but the land destruction and resources extraction isn’t to the same degree. I guess what is the perceived goal vs actual goal of a carbon offset?
44.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
tree planting ≠ forest planting. But on that notion a “productive” artificial forest solves this issue. build forest with plants that provide utility. But are family to the local environment. it’s a concept that has been proven
45.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
A car sitting in traffic, not moving, but releasing emissions, isn’t a problem?
46.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
Right because we can’t introduce more floura within development. this isnt binary.
47.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
The only reason I can think of why your getting down voted, is a reductionists viewpoint. Forests are really the simple solution. it’s a matter of time frames not net carbon in and out.
48.
by bratcomplex 6y ago
This. it’s the difference between dirt and soil.