millie

I honestly can't stand slowly scrolling and waiting for the text to appear. What a terrible design choice.

Can we start archiving stuff somewhere that doesn't block firefox?

Have you ever experienced actual snow? Like, four feet deep with a frozen crust on top? You're not plowing that with your feet.

They won't if you get rid of cars. Good luck plowing with a bike.

Skis would probably be more reasonable at certain times of year, but the terrain between cities isn't exactly designed for skiing.

I know you want American infrastructure to not necessitate some sort of vehicle bigger than a bike, but it literally just does. Wanting it won't make the change, and making unrealistic suggestions will remain just as ineffective as making no suggestions at all.

Accessibility is also more or less non-existent with these proposed solutions.

If you tried to bike in heavy snow here your entire tire would literally be buried. Especially if there were no plows.

There are, in fact, places that get real snow.

There's some good information in this article, but I would have appreciated it being a little less of an ad for a podcast.

The title implies that we're going to hear from scientists about their opinions, but all we actually get in its body is a single quote from one scientist as the literal tagline. Talk about clickbait.

In some places. But if you're in a non-metropolitan area somewhere that it gets cold and snowy, you're going to need a vehicle to bring you directly to your house unless maybe you're downtown, and it's going to need to have four wheel drive or at least enough weight to grip the snow.

I just want to, for a moment, shed some light on the mental disconnect here for Ms. Clifford.

This is a person who literally ran CNBC's climate change desk. She is, then, ostensibly aware of all the same information any of the rest of us have about climate change.

And yet, she seems to think we can somehow have a world where everybody can casually fly to Istanbul or some other place they've never been every single year, and that'll be sustainable. Or if she doesn't think it's sustainable, she's still totally fine using her own financial position to do it anyway.

If this is how people who actually focus their careers on climate change think, we're pretty fucked.

Why do they need to sleep at a 'reasonable time' as determined by someone who has no access to their body or mind? What's wrong with being a night person?

We don't need to all wake up at the crack of dawn and cater to the panicky little day people who can't stop staring at the minute hand.

Well, I used a different D word than 'defending'.

Defaulting to a commerce-centric worldview in this context means being completely mystified as to why anyone might not want to wake up to an alarm, and finding a society that puts human needs first ridiculous.

The reality is that centering our lives around buying and selling things at the expense of untold human misery is itself ridiculous. Unfortunately it's also extremely prevalent.

The responses to this thread on SLRPNK of all places just shows how far gone we are. Even here people default to a commerce-centric worldview where the idea of not waking up to an alarm is a ridiculous proposition.

A world in which humans allow their bodies to sleep and wake up naturally? Don't be absurd!How would we prioritize meaningless toil over our own health and happiness if we entertained our bodies' own internal clocks?

Waking up in a panic is your duty as a primate.