It’s all worth it if my plastic “made in China” hula dancer arrives in time so I can put it on my cars dashboard. /s
It is safe to say im done with amazon deleting my account now I will not support them anymore I worked there and saw how bad workers are treated and used to order stuff from them often im done with them period.
period
How ironic that you don’t know how to use one.
prick
Almost every day I have a fight with my gf over her Amazon account. I told her we can not proceed with a meaningful relationship if she doesn’t cancel it. Am I the crazy one?
Imho there are different aspects to this: are they binge buying useless stuff on Amazon constantly, feeding into mindless consumerism? are there more ethical alternatives available?
If someone uses Amazon for something they can’t find anywhere else, or that the alternative costs so much more they can’t afford it, then I understand. If they are just a mindless consumer and they do nothing to change that, they lose my respect.
At the same time, if that is a reason you are considering to break up with someone, imo it tells your relationship is not very solid to start with.
Yes, wtf man?
Yes. The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing. If you’re serious enough to sabotage your own relationships over this, then perhaps focus instead on a greater boycott campaign, or actively pushing for legislation to actually make a difference.
Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing.
This is some centrist capitalism-enabling shit. The sum of our individual efforts can amount to great things. Boycotts have been a great tool against fascism throughout history.
@Waffelmeister@lemmy.world is actually boycotting his relationship. I do not think it is wise for him to try to force her into submission rather than leading by a lifetime of example proving that one can get by just fine without Amazon and inspiring rather than coercing her to leave.
Seconded. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” type shit. Pick your battles.
Imagine the local government decides they can’t pull water anymore. Like several nuclear reactors having to shut down due to low river levels recently.
The picture of facility in vast desert is baffling.
Call Johnny Silverhand.
At this rate we are gonna have to mass clone Johnny’s engram. 1 nuke is not enough.
But Margaret have dog, can’t be mad…
I know this will be buried but it seems Ai isn’t worth anything really if these giant complexes are the price. Just straight up monetarily, who benefits?
The company benefits by convincing investors that is still growing and innovating. If investors think they are still growing their stock prices go up. If their stock prices go up then they can use their stock as an asset to borrow against or as a form of payment in lieu of cash. Stock is particularly useful to a company as a medium of exchange because they can just make more. But they can only do that without tanking the value if people are buying, and they can only keep people buying if they think the price will go up, and the only thing the price will go up if they think the company is going to become more profitable in the future.
This is basically Cory Doctrow’s argument in his latest book.
These companies are all racing to dominate the market. Eventually one will win, largely through government contracts. Then all the infrastructure will be used to further propagandize, kill and spy on us.
looks like they are aiming for most govt contract= mass AI surveillance as a constant influx of profit, while they saw commercial use as a total failure, since nobody wants to pay for it, and the growing resentment against AI.
Net zero doesn’t mean lowering pollution btw. Net zero means essentially cancelling out any pollution by planting trees, buying carbon credits, etc. It’s possible to be the biggest polluter and also net zero as a company. If that actually helps the planet is another story.
Well, as long as trees magically suck pollution out of the atmosphere in extremely high numbers, and sequester it for at least a few million years, that should be fine
Otherwise, we’re probably fucked.
i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading:
-
not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon.
-
carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it’s buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2.
-
this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide.
-
the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following:
- Carbonate Compensation Depth
- Methane Clathrate Hydrate
- Permafrost Methane
-
Most “we plant a tree for every _____” things are just scams. They plant the trees, sometimes as monocrops that could never become a healthy forest, and usually without monitoring the trees or guaranteeing their survival into at least early-maturity.
Trees get too much credit. It’s plankton in the ocean that absorbs like 70% of all co2
But the grid can’t handle EV or the “pollution” they create.
funnily the all the “grid can’t handle all the EV charging” is just assuming everyone is going to fast charge the same time, when in reality most are just going to be using either level 1 overnight charging every night or fast charge for a way shorter time so very few people are doing that at the same time.
Fun fact: This could possibly be true at the same time.
While this certainly could be true, I would say it’s only that way because state and federal government refuse to invest in our aging energy grid.
with proper taxation and directing that towards upgrading the infrastructure, supporting it is absolutely possible.
BUT it was ALSO create THREE whole jobs so it’s WORTH it!
Ah but the never-ending deluge of Just Dance Vance videos is worth it!
Sounds like an engineering nightmare
It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.
That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”
What the fuck? They looked at the world recently and said “yeah, climate change isn’t as much of a problem as it was before”?!?
They mean politically, they can get away with this now without blownack, they never gave one single shit about the climate
The same company that will same day deliver a single tube of toothpaste to my door doesn’t care about carbon emissions? What?
On one hand that sounds bad, but if that delivery driver is dropping off enough things in one run that would have been individual people driving to a store, does it balance out?
It’s those pesky Canadians again, it’s all their fault for mismanaging the fires, not the fact we are cooking ourselves alive.
“current gov allows us to do anything so we don’t care anymore because that,'s cheaper”
No, they looked at the blatant corruption from Fatboy McKiddieFiddlers regime and figured, “eh, what’s the point of pretending to give a shit. No fucker has got the balls to stop us from fucking thing up.”
Or maybe “eh, it’s fucked anyways, let’s make red line go up”.
Don’t forget to use your paper straws people! It’s the average person that causes harm to the climate, not businesses. Maybe we should give them more tax breaks.
And don’t forget to vote for the lesser evil party that will allow amazon to build just a dozen of these enormous datacenters instead of even more
You’re going to be surprised when you find out who consumes what businesses produce…
“Yet you live in society, curious.”
Not only that, actively consume products and blame the creators of the products for the consequences.
I don’t know, if you actively are reducing your shopping from amazon and try to stay away from their products, I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for criticising them. And many people now a days are doing just that, so you can’t really assume right from the start that a person is being hypocritical.
Weren’t they supposed to be carbon neutral by 2030? Sure seems like they’re trending the wrong way
