Why’d you pick 4? Why not all?

OpenAI said the threshold for referring a user to law enforcement was whether the case involved an imminent and credible risk of serious physical harm to others. The company said it did not identify credible or imminent planning. The Wall Street Journal first reported OpenAI’s revelation.

OpenAI said that, after learning of the school shooting, employees reached out to the RCMP with information on the individual and their use of ChatGPT.

Not defending them, but OP’s selections seemed intentionally rage baiting.

What I was saying is that it is not a binary choice between pushing damaging projects here or accepting damaging projects elsewhere, but instead wherever possible we should be doing what we can to mitigate and limit the environmental and social impacts of extraction, insofar as there are things we need to extract.

I mean, yes but there are always tradeoffs and time is a massive factor. If doing everything we can to mitigate local environmental damage means a process that delays the mining of minerals needed for mass-electrification and slows it down, then we’ll end up doing more overall environmental damage as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

I didn’t say anything about poor labour practices, but we do have to accept some environmental degradation.

There is literally no practical way to keep this many people alive without some environmental degradation.

Wholeheartedly agree.

No we cannot.

We literally need those minerals to build things like solar panels and electrical infrastructure that will let us transition away from fossil fuels.

There is no perfectly clean energy source, and we need energy to keep humans alive, healthy, and happy.

I am generally extremely pro workers right and pro environmental protection, but environmentalists really need look at the situation practically and holistically.

This article seems to suggest that it’s impossible to mine ethically, and while I get that it causes inherent damage and destruction, the alternatives will cause more damage and destruction, just not here.

The sad reality of bill 5 is that environmental laws have been used to block infrastructure projects numerous times. And while local environmental concerns are obviously valid, in the real world that we live in, it is not obviously ‘more ethical’ to let them block the project so that it instead gets built in say Peru, or doesn’t get built at all and we keep using fossil fuel infrastructure.

Because these articles don’t know what they’re talking about, and like to run around screaming the sky is falling.

Many data centers built today use closed loop, or immersion cooling, that do not waste water.

I generally agree with most of what you said, but there’s a balance to be struck when it comes to shitting on things.

If you publish that opinion online, be it a newspaper editorial, or a random comment on a post, you are helping to spread that opinion, and that general emotional sentiment, to others.

And both social media companies, and foreign governments (and some internal actors), all benefit from the population being angry and divided. There is a constant bias towards anger that always need tempering.

Well thought out and reasoned critiques about specific choices are one thing, glib comments made from skimming headlines are another (not saying that’s what you do, but that’s what a lot of social media users of all kinds, be they Reddit, Lemmy, Facebook, Mastodon etc) do.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/qEOBXVHe_0EAAAAd/skating-basketball.gif

I would like to believe that’s true, but I’m not convinced that it is.

The Conservatives had an entrenched 30-33% of the vote, all the way through the Layton years.

Jesus Christ.

I know every online leftist seems to think Carney is the devil, but these numbers should give people massive pause at what the alternative looks like.

It’s wild to me that with as centrist as Carney’s been, he’s barely pulled any of the actual conservative vote to him. Really seems like we have a serious problem with growing entrenched conservatism in this country.

You would think that a reputable journalist would know that… you know, update their articles once new information comes to light?

Honestly, this video is disingenuous.

No one is arguing that it can’t be SA just because they’re athletes, and that had nothing to do with the judge’s ruling.

The judge went through the evidence and it seemed more likely that she consented then not.

This is a better article and was extremely easy to find: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0qlwnyy70o