I think we’re agreed here. With China being the largest emitter of current (as opposed to cumulative) emissions, a formula - which would indeed likely be quite complex - is needed here that can fairly take that into account along with the other points (like the accelerated timeframe required as compared to the rich countries).

The article makes a good point - which I think you allude to - about the definition of rich countries perhaps needing to be updated as part of this (for example, you include South Korea, who isn’t on that list, though weirdly, Japan is, despite having a post WW-II date of the 1960s). Probably should be “advanced economies” instead of “rich countries” - so China would be rich via total GDP measures but perhaps not an advanced economy yet due to the low average per capital GDP or low average individual citizen’s income, for example, while the US would be advanced and rich while (for example) North Korea wouldn’t be either.

When did China surpass the US to become the biggest emitter? I thought that wasn’t going to happen until 2050, as per https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/global-warming-carbon-emissions-china-us/

I’d dispute that China has no interest in reducing their emissions. See this other post by the OP, https://slrpnk.net/post/14732947 showing that they’re on track to reduce their emissions this year.

The point was not about need but fairness. By total GDP alone, China could certainly fit whatever criteria to be included in the list of rich countries - but it seems that it’s understood that this isn’t particularly fair.

Likewise, the rich countries on the list have had over a century since their respective industrial revolutions to take advantage of it and use it to accumulate the wealth needed to go green. China, however, would have to change much faster than the rest. This is the unfairness being addressed (as opposed to need), and the credits were just one idea to address that.

Hmm… I understand the that last line to mean that every State should have the same number of Senators in the Senate.

But from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/56523/can-the-us-senate-be-abolished-without-unanimous-consent-of-the-states it sounds like a workaround is simply to set that equal number to zero. Meanwhile there’s no prohibition on adding a new, third House to Congress - so maybe we reply the Senate with the House of of State Peers or something.

Alas, it looks like we’re screwed now.

Agreed, but does it require every state to agree? If enough constitutional amendments could be passed and ratified by a two thirds majority on all levels, then the Constitution could simply be amended to implement those changes (and the authors behind the paper for this proposal expect that this is exactly what will happen once the plan is executed successfully - rather than Dems abusing their power or DC enacting minority rule over the entire country, they’ll cooperate to design a better, fairer, and reformed system)

This issue already exists, regardless of the embed server problem. Right now, images posted by users to an instance get sent to that community’s instance and then copied to all instances of all subscribers.

If anything, the embed server provides a potential solution - rather than federate the image directly, simply link to the copy of the image on the embed server. (I’ve done some customized code changes on top of pyfedi to implement this idea there.)

I imagine instance admins would still want to to monitor and delete links to CP, but under this idea only the admins of the embed server and their delegates would have the ability to remove CP from the embed server itself. (Should they delegate this ability to other instance admins? Probably only on a case-by-case basis at most.)

Perhaps they could support a reporting functioning from mods and instance admins though…

Hey, same here. And you know what? There’s hope - at least one pollster is predicting a major blowout for Harris, https://app.vantagedatahouse.com/analysis/TheBlowoutNoOneSeesComing-1

It’s a good article. Considering that China is still considered a developing country, it makes sense that it would still not yet be included in that list of rich countries.

I was thinking that perhaps a trade could be be concluded here. Places like China gets credits in recognition of having to bear that accelerated burden, which it can exchange in place of climate-changed related tariffs. So, China would - for a limited time - continue to get tariff free access to the EU, but would have to deliver on climate change in order to avoid tariffs completely.

You’re not the first to think about this.

See https://aumetra.xyz/posts/the-fedi-ddos-problem - there an embed server is proposed, to be shared by multiple instances (ideally a great many would use just the one), which can host things like image files and previews.

Wanted to add - not directly related to the above article, but kinda confirming the general environment:

“She hit me the other day,” Trump said. “I was going to say to my people, ‘Am I allowed to hit her now?’”
“They said, ‘Take it easy, sir,’” Trump said.
“Well, what do you mean?” Trump replied to himself. “She said bad about me. I can’t hit back?”
The conversation continued with Trump’s imaginary staff pleading with the former president to “just relax.”

This is from https://www.rawstory.com/michelle-obama-vs-trump/ but it’s a series of direct quotes from the guy himself.

This is exactly why I like the 127 DC states plan so much, https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Need to drop the filibuster to pass the required laws to implement it, but once that’s done, Dems have not only a permanent super majority in the Senate, but the required two thirds majority of House, Senate, and even States to pass constitutional amendments. So as soon as its removed, the filibuster can be re-enshrined via a constitutional amendment as a permanent fixture (preventing the GOP from taking advantage once they inevitably retake power).

She was predicted to win the popular vote…And she did.

But this article is saying it’s based on the EC,

Nate Silver’s latest forecast now gives Vice President Kamala Harris a slight edge in the Electoral College
The model shows Harris securing 271 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 267.

Well, this is a hurdle though: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap

Bill Clinton, who won in 1992, was from the midwestern state of Arkansas. I think this trend started long before, and has to do with the center of the US shifting differently from some of the more populated areas of the US.

When we ran a young charismatic candidate with a progressive campaign in 08, it was easy to get voters on board and red states became blue, it even carried over to flipping state governments

See https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521 - but the TLDR is that 2008 isn’t comparable, since a major gerrymandering effort by the GOP took place in 2010 that took Dems by surprise - and this gerrymandering made the above virtually impossible to repeat (by design, I might add).

Yep, the truth is it shouldn’t even be this close, but Kamala has moved significantly right in the last four years.

Actually, that’s probably why she’s winning. Because of the nature and makeup of the Electoral College, we can consider the Presidential election biased in favor of the GOP candidate.

It’s the only explanation for why they keep moving right after Obama’s 08 landslide

I’ve explained this in detail before, so rather than reposting, I’ll just point folks over to this, https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521

The Dem party doesn’t try to get landslide victories, they want to give voters the absolute minimum they need to win.

Well, I’m sure they would if they could. But see above - it’s not possible with the current structure. I’m still hopeful that we can get Harris elected, and then have a chance of getting the 127 DC states plan to pass - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Which would allow Dems to pass the required constitutional amendments to address the systemic problems with the current, erm, system.

I’ve had some bad ones (the DMV near my university) along with some good ones (the good folks at Service Ontario where I got DMV-like things done - they’re so polite, friendly, and helpful!).

There are real benefits to the third party candidate in this scenario though - since they’re getting multiple votes in a safe state, but federal campaign funding eligibility is just based on the national popular vote, this gets them closer to that funding than if the swing voter did a straight vote for the third party.

Also, he has confessed to telling the ranger back then that he shot himself. Surely the ranger would have known he was lying or not if he saw the wound? You’re right again - it doesn’t add up.

Wow, you’re right. When I first read that sentence I assumed that he meant that the gun went off when he fell down, and it fired into his arm - into his old wound from the war - and that’s why he worried the new bullet might have dislodged the old one, along the lines of https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3846953/ or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731308/

But then I reread it and it says,

Sheehy himself has sought to parry Peach’s version of events by saying he had never been hit by gunfire that day in 2015.

So you’re right. The bullet would have to be dislodged by his act of falling down. I’m not a medical or a firearms expert so I can’t say for sure on this point, I can only note that my internet searches don’t seem to come up with any other examples of this ever happening.

I guess Sheehy might have gotten irrationally worried over nothing that day - a strong enough fall can do that and much worse to the good ol’ noggin, I suppose. But that also means he never tried to get a bullet removed after so many years? Isn’t that really dangerous to leave the bullet in? And couldn’t the doctors who saw in in 2015 tell if the bullet was recent or really old?