Is it? Maybe both? A movement against climate change makes sense? A movement for climate change in the sense of raising the issue could also make sense? What a funny language

I do have a few things that are from outdoor brands so possiblity it impacts how long they last.

I don't know. I think I got lucky with a few pieces of clothing and mostly try to focus on quality long lasting stuff. But like I said I don't really buy much. My jeans are all pure denim and my tshirts tend to be heavier. And I think that's it. The only thing I notice that doesn't hold up very well is knitted sweaters. They tend to stretch over time.

My clothes last me an unusual amount of time when compared with most people I think (15 year old tshirts) and don't really buy clothes at all unless something is at the limit of repairability or looking very bad.

I want to ride my bike more. I work from home so I use it mostly to go the gym but I want to use for more things. Like shopping and stuff like that. I'm thinking of buying an electric one to help out since I live in a city with steep hills and an electric one would make it more likely to use.

I think that was the case before but changed last year. I know people who sell the excess during the day. Not sure if you are from Portugal but here is a link in Portuguese https://www.adene.pt/venda-do-excedente-no-autoconsumo-simplificada/

I agree with you but at the same time there huge swats of the ocean that are the equivalent of aquatic deserts. Specially on the Atlantic. So much so that frequently structures are sinked in order to create better conditions for species that were overfished. But those zones of the ocean being barren is not related to human activity so much as they are just a bit too harsh and empty. So maybe if you could store the carbon there and at the same time create structures to improve conditions it would be net positive for biodiversity.

Nowhere I said authoritarianism by the majority. And I'm not American so I'm assuming you are talking about the USA government. But let me see if understand what you are saying. Your take is that both neoliberals and the far right are both loosing support but that support is not going anywhere because people are just disengaging from politics? If that's the case I agree. But also I don't see how to re-engage people.

Ok I can agree with you on that last part. But would you be ok with slide into an authoritarian government just because it was under a leftist banner? Would it be that different from a full blown fascist ruler? I've read plenty of leftist and anarchist theory and even if I can agree that it was a possible path, it was a path, not the path, same thing with eventual rise of socialism, it's possible, not a given thing. Also no need to be condescending I'm trying to have a polite conversation here. I wanted your personal take on why you think majority of people were left leaning, I didn't even disagree with it. The far right is gaining power because it's gaining size. People choose authoritarian and racist rethoric above the alternative because it's simpler. It's force above philosophy. That's why I said a pinch. Because if left populism goes in the same direction it will lead to the same conclusion even if the original goal was better.

I think it's a bit more complex than that. In my country there are multiple Marxist parties and since we are a parliamentary system they have actual power. Still the general discourse tends to feel a bit more to the sides I mentioned. At the same time far right has been growing. But I agree people tend to be onboard with leftist policies. Maybe what the world needs is a pinch more leftist populism. Bring voters back from the claws of the far right.

Why do you say that? I have the complete opposite impression. Working class people are wither going liberal or authoritarian/populist depending on the amount of studies they have and general vibe around them. People outside of that are really rare. Which honestly feels depressing.

Good analysis, there are a few things that I think area bit opinionated and there is nothing wrong with that, I just don't agree with a few things out of context. For example I agree that code on main should be buildable and testable. Code in your own branch should be for yourself and should still have commits. Also lazygit really abstracts a huge chunk of git logic while making it easier to understand.

If you can improve the soil there that's seems like a good plan. I would go with a sealable container maybe those boxes that have a latch. But I imagine everytime it opens the smell won't be very nice

That is a very good question. I too want to know. But also you need any escape for that compost. Do you have roof garden or balcony?

Make one, share it here. Would love to use it

Lazygit, beautiful, terminal based, runs everywhere

You are right, but to be fair most things that are petroleum based are made with it because of economic reasons. Many things don't need to be it's just cheaper that they are. That's because of a combination of factors. If tomorrow every oil field in the world disappeared we would see alternatives for almost everything almost instantly because there would be huge financial incentive for it and many of those things already exist, they just have to compete with a very established and subsidized raw material

Debian is the GOAT

What's wrong with smaller cities, with more evenly distributed population across countries, with density lowering as you move from the center? Reduces city impact, still promotes dense urbanization and reduces transportation costs if there is something being produces around the city. Also left to nature is a bit impossible in today's world and promotes detachment from feeling like part of nature for most people. Most of Europe and north America is riddled with invasive species or just have been devastated by agriculture or deforestation in the last centuries and if managed correctly which can mean leave it alone humans can have a positive impact on the world. If you could create forests in the desert with plants from around it, wouldn't that be positive?

How do those people feed themselves? How do they move around? How far away is the average person's house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital? In the end is the average energy consumption per person smaller? The existence of mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs. There is not much to gain from gathering too many humans in one place for the sake of it.

That would be better true but I argue that even if you compare companies to cities the same problem occurs with cities, mega or very big cities are not sustainable or easier to manage, they just occur naturally.

I don't think even if a company is worker owned or democratically controlled may still choose to go against the customer or competition with monopolistic practices so I'm not sure it's possible to have mega corps be very positive in any way to society.