Carbon negative when applied to soil. Making it is still a carbon releasing combustion process

EDIT okay I’m wrong they are including the production in their calculations.

I know sand is actually a precious resource when you really learn about how much concrete we make and what kinds of sand there are and which are needed for concrete.

But still, it’s strange to think that this exotic bean which will only grow in certain climates can actually be easier to get than fucking sand.

A biochar of spent coffee grounds.

Not coffee grounds.

If you don’t know what biochar is, it’s high carbon material that’s left over after burning organic matter (think:wood) slowly under low-oxygen conditions.

Biochar requires energy and emitting gases.

It seems unfair to say that we’re saving on CO2 and methane from decomposition without also counting the cost of the biochar combustion.

A doctor has access to totally different electronic information services than the average jackass on Facebook, if you didn’t know. Lawyers and journalists have their own versions of this too. So yeah, any doctor has better info than any private individual.

More importantly, they have well-informed judgment about how to consume those statistics, quality them, and apply them. This is quite important as the average Facebook jackass is bombarded by deliberately misleading information which they need to think critically about unraveling.

That is neither accurate nor the point.

I think you’re missing that she is a pediatrician and not just a “doctor.” Pediatricians administer a big majority of vaccines and care for the patients receiving them. They probably do learn a hell of a lot more about them than, say, an oncologist who spends all their time treating cancer in old people. And they see the effects of them up close in the field. Any doctor is constantly researching and staying up to date. A pediatrician worth their salt is very well educated on all relevant studies even if they didn’t conduct those studies with their own two hands. I reject the notion that you need to conduct the studies to know the science: that’s a ludicrous bar for us to set.

This is one of the things I don’t like about the whole Twitter format. There’s no moderator layer. Every lemmy community must be created by a moderator and that mod can be held accountable.

There isn’t even a concept of communities on Twitter / Mastodon. Hashtags? Nobody owns monitoring them, and they can be freely improvised at will. It really is just the instance and its zillion users with nothing in between. Imagine a lemmy instance admin being responsible for all the moderation… would never work.

I find this bot especially enjoying because its “better” link format doesn’t work for me - is not highlighted or clickable. And it posts this so-called correction on links that DO work for me just fine.

A Buddhist temple.

“I don’t know anything about this and I won’t educate myself directly, but I’ll give you my uninformed hot take nonetheless…”

Their misrepresentation of your position is arguably slander in the legal sense in that it attributes a criminal intent to you. I would not be cool with their statement remaining as is. They can say that y’all disagreed about whether it was child fetishization in the first place, which is accurate.

A lot of people are taking it at face value that fetishizing childlike appearances even happened here, which it has not. This instance’s rules ban even fictive depictions of the underage. Drawings, anything.

No one disagrees that fetishizing children is bad. No one. What you have here is the blahaj mods flipping out and thinking that this occurred when it did not. They even falsely claimed that the admins here are okay with that happening, which they are not.

Let’s not dignify their position by accepting their false premise and then saying “you know they kinda have a point.”

Totally. They even have to right to be dead wrong about the reason, which they’ve exercised.

I really don’t see how being a trans community qualifies one to judge adult content. I think their objection, incorrect as it was, was based on overall aesthetics and framing, not just cup size. Apparently pearl-clutching is universal.

I had this question too. It was adorableporn. It is not remotely comparable to r/jailbait so let’s not jump to conclusions. The lemmynsfw mods are absolutely in the right here.

Okay… so it was adorableporn.

They are clearly wrong. Glad to have that settled.

They said that you were okay with the fact that users were specifically trying to make it seem like they were underage. Good to hear the other side of the story.