Is there an antenna connection on the TV? Is there a menu option for scanning for over-the-air channels?
It may be configured to receive service via the Internet, and you may need to switch it to the antenna and scan for available channels before you can use them.
I hope so. Nurses have pretty good unions right?
I’m convinced that the only thing that will really save us from this sort of thing is labor organization.
What could possibly be more destructive to social norms than armed conflict?
Human existence is threatened. Just browse some of the articles at /c/climate@slrpnk.net :
France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
The world’s oceans are warming at a record-breaking pace
Climate change causing more species to go extinct in temperate regions, UA study shows
It’s hardly hyperbole. The environment we live in is actively disintegrating. The effects of the damage are accelerating, right now.
The most effective thing we can do to address the problem is increase renewable energy sources: What actually works — right here, right now — to address climate change
That means more copper, steel, aluminum and concrete, for the whole world, as quickly as we possibly can.
What will happen is they will sell it to your boss as a way to cut costs on labor, but will arrange things legally such that you are still responsible for the patients’ wellbeing, so if the AI makes a mistake you get the blame.
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
That’s an awful lot of human life.
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Methinks you have no real concept of what life was like 100 years ago.
my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
Really not sure what “subjugated knowledge” is supposed to mean.
In any case this is mostly irrelevant. It’s been hundreds or thousands of years, depending on which culture you’re talking about. The environmental conditions have changed, the land has changed, and the cultures are long gone. We have newer methods and better options for land and resource management, and for studying the current actual conditions, and for understanding local environments in the context of the global whole.
the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages
They also had a life expectancy of about 50 years and no methods for treating anything like cancer or sepsis or long-term debilitating conditions. My sister is Type 1 diabetic, she’d probably just be dead by 40.
I agree that we should have more respect for those that came before and the work they did that we are still benefitting from today (such as the selective breeding for crops you mentioned), but we can’t move forward by looking backward. The survival strategies of those past cultures don’t scale up to sustain 8 billion people, we need new methods supported by new technologies, better information and system-wide analysis.
This sounds a communication problem, not a system problem.
Huh? Communication is a system problem? Why would they be separate issues?
Decentralized systems are good at adapting to changing environments and are typically harder to destroy.
But slower and prone to error, because the same information has to be conveyed to all members of the system, and if the individual members are not coordinated they take individual action leading to duplication of effort and waste of resources, or worse take the wrong action because they only got part of the information or because they are not restricted to follow orders from other members of the system because no one has any authority over anyone else.
This decentralized system requires that every member is acting in good faith for the benefit of other members with no self-interest. That is not practical, it will never happen.
It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is a nonsensical point of view. If we’re going to get out of our current climate problems we need to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources as much and as quickly as possible. That’s going to mean more electrical infrastructure, more solar panels, more grid-scale battery systems, more wind turbines, more hydroelectric stations, etc., which in turn means more copper, steel, aluminum, silicon, and concrete.
Sure there’s profit motivation involved. It’s going to be a lot of fucking hard work and people gotta eat. But framing resource extraction for industrial use as only motivated by profit is so narrow-minded that this conversation can’t really continue until you take a few steps down from your high horse and adjust your extreme point of view to something more rational.
We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
There are already massive recycling industries in place for aluminum, steel, copper, and even lithium recovery from old batteries. Aluminum in particular is cheaper (more cost effective in terms of time and labor) to recycle than to mine and refine new ore. That’s great, but it still doesn’t produce enough volume of material, we still need more new material also.
There are also quarries that grind rock and old concrete down to make fine particles, but… it’s not the same as sand, it can’t be used in all of the same production processes. The result is more like very fine gravel than it is sand. There’s also an issue with a lot of concrete being reinforced with steel cables or rebar, which you can’t just throw into a rock grinder.
I don’t know why you’re talking about this as if it were all-or-nothing, that’s not a practical approach in the real world. It seems like you’re more interested in scoring holier-than-thou points than discussing actual solutions.
Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com said:
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution
@A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com did:
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie
If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.
>it was about that time that i noticed @OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world was about 500 feet tall and from the paleolithic era
Actually all of the men in the Great Lakes area were lost in the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.
OK.
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
OK. How is this society organized?
Actually, centralization of management creates a lot of benefits in communication flow, resource allocation and operating efficiency. Lack of centralization results in confusion and task duplication.
the people who live in concert with the land
What does that even mean? It sounds an awful lot like noble savage mythology.
That sounds great… on paper. A very Disney ending to the long story of international resource conflict.
It also doesn’t really address my question, which is:
What happens when the extraction of a resource is necessary, but the local people object? What if they refuse to cooperate?
“Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
That’s… that’s what the word means…
https://www.simplypsychology.org/anomie.html