• 40 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2025

help-circle





  • I’ve been watching Landman clips on YouTube and I have mixed feelings on it.

    I think it does a good job of capturing the futility of this situation, in the sense that every stage of fossil fuel production (and consumption) is populated with folks “just doing their job,” providing for their families, following orders, etc. I watch this show and see the banality of evil, oil CEOs who genuinely believe they’re doing right by the world rather than burning it down.

    But I’m also acutely aware that this is not the take most viewers will be walking away with. We’re talking about a general public that idolizes the likes of Tony Montana, Gordon Gekko, Patrick Bateman, Tony Soprano, and Jordan Belfort, despite their films/shows explicitly depicting their downfall as a result of their moral failings.

    The vast majority of viewers are going walk away from these films feeling less guilty for their own fossil fuel consumption.







  • I love this angle! That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate your detailed breakdown.

    My main criticism of this piece is, as implemented, it still relies on a larger governing body of some sort to police inter-local conflict. If we just do away with federal government entirely, there’s nothing stopping a warlike locality from invading and conquering another to increase its territory and resources, and if that continues unchecked you just get another federal government. (Other examples abound, such as a locality upstream dumping toxic waste into a river that serves as drinking water for a locality downstream.)

    If you don’t have a federal body those issues go unresolved, but if you do, the struggle becomes checking the power of said body and preventing it from taking away local sovereignty. And I don’t have any easy answers to that.






















  • My yard used to be hard-packed clay where only the most tenacious weeds could survive (field bindweed, burdock, thistle, dandelion), so my first step was putting down multiple layers of heavy cardboard to smother them, then covering that with about a foot of wood chip. That killed the latter three and helped to start softening up the soil (worms move in when organic matter is present), but bindweed just pushed through the cardboard and wood chip, so I had to hit that with (selective, judicious) applications of herbicide. It was a hobby for the first year, but now my yard is weed-free and the soil is turning more rich and loamy!

    I’ve mostly used starts/seedlings to fill in my beds, but now that the weed pressure is lower I’ve started putting soil & compost over the mulch to encourage my plants to self-seed. I’m also filling in all the “blank spaces” with ground cover, to provide an additional barrier against weeds. A mature garden will require a little weeding now and then, but for me that’s something I enjoy (it’s a break from work, and time in the sun), and it’s definitely not as intensive as vegetable gardening.


  • Is the city just going to fine each building $25 every time an inspector checks?

    From the city’s website, it looks like a fine of $300 can be assessed for buildings with more than 9 units (and for multiple infractions).

    I assume this would incentivize owners to inform their tenants of the policy, and make composting more easily accessible to them. I can think of a dozen loopholes and unforeseen consequences of this law, but however imperfect, I still believe it’s a step in the right direction. Food waste is a massive issue, as is nutrient loss from our soils, and ultimately I think that inconvenience is a small price to pay for addressing that. I realize that not everyone feels the same way, which is why incentives are needed.

    This law is a negative incentive, so I would hope that some positive incentives could be implemented as well.