“This meme was made by someone in a warm climate.”
I mean, I’m in Moscow and it’s barely below 0 degC.
But - yes.
haven’t seen a shitpost hit a nerve this hard in a while, hahaha!
-40° and a newborn say otherwise
You’re supposed to be the sweater on the newborn and not just yourself in this scenario
They’re going to need slightly more than a sweater.
Two sweaters?
Haha, but no this is a serious issue, kids died in Texas last winter because parents didn’t realize it could get cold enough to kill them inside their house.
… why is texas?
Because large parts of Texas aren’t used to being cold. They’re hot desert climates and while a 75 degree night after a 110 degree high feels cold, it won’t kill you. So when they got nights at 32 degrees and their electricity was out it was something of a shock.
Don’t get mold buddy
Cold one or hot one?
A touque as well. You lose most of your heat through your head. It’s easy enough to take off and put in your pocket if you get too warm, then put back on if you feel like you’re getting cold.
Sadly not accurate, except about touques being sexy and convenient
If it helps, here is an article calling ur mom and the dude from Letterkenny dumb: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/body-heat-loss
Simpler to just model humans as nearly black bodies with known surface area and some heat lost through gas exchange.
Well, maybe my mom just told me that to make sure I wore a touque. ;)
I’m bald now, so it made sense.
Guys if you keep heating your houses to 15°C or more you’re the cause for climate change and the corporations can’t blow petawatts on their AI data centers c’mon don’t be so selfish
> *buys new iPhone*
> *uses Google as primary search engine*
> *doesn’t use adblocker*
> *pays for youtube*
> *pays for spotify*
> *pays for netflix*
> *buys brand clothes*
> *doesn’t give a shit about monopolies, worker conditions, product origins, nothing*
> Guys, it’s the corporation’s fault for making all these products for me to buy!
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
I find that quite the platitude.
When is consumption ever “ethical”? Is hunting animals to survive ethical? Is killing plants to survive ethical? Is modification of the environment for survival ethical? Life itself is destructive because in order to survive, something else must die. In order to make life more enjoyable, even more must die and suffer. This is not limited to capitalism but any form of survival.
If we were 4 billion people on the planet without global trade, markets, businesses, advanced technology, and so on, we would still kill everything around us, go to war, enslave, rape, subjugate, and consume.
that phrase doesn’t really attempt to tackle the general idea of consumption, just the one under capitalism.
It’s a response to the phenomenon where seemingly no matter what you buy, no matter where you buy it, somewhere along the supply chain someone got hurt or got taken advantage of, and the environment was most likely hurt as well.
Ethical people (ignoring the definition of what that means as i’m not really feeling like writing an essay) usually want to avoid any products that cause someone or something to be harmed during production. But under capitalism that’d mean never buying technology again and having to quit society as having a smartphone is mandatory nowadays, though you’d probably starve first if your best friend isn’t a 100% eco friendly farmer (and even then that farmer probably uses a combine which is made out of quite a few parts, production of at least one or two definitely involved some form of abuse)
So the slogan “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” highlights the fact it’s not an individual’s fault, and the invidivual is not to blame, when they buy something that unknowingly (or knowingly but out of necessity) brought harm to the people or the environment involved in making the thing.
In the olden days you could feasibly survive by being a farmer who kills maybe a couple of his stock a year for meat. You knew exactly where your patatos came from (your field), you knew exactly where your clothes came from (your best friend is the town seamstress), you knew exactly where you furniture is from (the lumberjack who gets wood for the carpenter is your brother).
But then things got more complicated, and capitalism encourages cutting ethical corners in favour of profit
that phrase doesn’t really attempt to tackle the general idea of consumption, just the one under capitalism.
Yes, exactly why I said it’s a platitude. It’s thoughtless and trite. I’m saying: consumption is not ethical, no matter which system. There is no ethical consumption.
So the slogan “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” highlights the fact it’s not an individual’s fault, and the invidivual is not to blame, when they buy something that unknowingly (or knowingly but out of necessity) brought harm to the people or the environment involved in making the thing.
That’s a cop out. It paints consumers as mere puppets or robots who are unable to make choices or decisions that could lead to a reduction of suffering.
In the olden days you could feasibly survive by being a farmer […]
The good ol’ days, how many times have I heard that one. In the good ol’ days there was often imperial rule. In the good ol’ days, slave trade was the norm. In the good older days, your little town or village could be overrun by wandering horde of Mongols or even just the next village over that had a different tribe. In the good ol’ days, if you were disabled you were fucked, if you had a different skin color you were fucked, if you were a woman you were figuratively and literally fucked, if you got sick any “incurable disease” you were not fucked, you were dead, if you couldn’t work anymore your offspring had to tend to you and if those didn’t exist or weren’t willing to you were fucked, and so on.
It’s nice to romanticise “simpler” days after watching “Gone With Wind”, but life back then was hard af. It was backbreaking. People died at much higher rates than now with little to show for it. People still live absolutely miserable lives, but the rate thereof is much lower in the countries exploiting others.
But then things got more complicated, and capitalism encourages cutting ethical corners in favour of profit
Capitalism doesn’t encourage anything. It’s one of the natural products of human greed. Any other system created by humans is flawed and infected the human disease, doomed to create suffering and torment. The only question is how much. Whether capitalism generates more than other systems is debatable, but to claim that there is “ethical consumption” in any other living system is wishful thinking. It doesn’t exist.
Perhaps to you the saying is a platitude, but that seems subjective. To someone who hasn’t considered the impacts of their consumption habits, or the ways that different economic systems can serve to reward different patterns of human behavior, it can be a thought provoking statement.
There is no ethical consumption.
If you view ethics as a binary, then sure. If you view ethics as a complex and nuanced spectrum, well, not so much.
Capitalism doesn’t encourage anything.
What a reductionist take, especially considering the paragraph you’d written just above it.
Perhaps to you the saying is a platitude, but that seems subjective
Wow, everything is relative. Do you have any other wise things to say? It’s in the eye of the beholder maybe? There is no truth? There are no absolutes? Want to whip out some tautologies or falsely attribute some quotes to Einstein?
If you view ethics as a binary, then sure. If you view ethics as a complex and nuanced spectrum, well, not so much.
Again with the “everything is relative”. So actually, we’re living in paradise right now, because relative to 5B years ago, earth would be inhospitable. But we are also living in hell because things could be so much better.
Everything is nuanced. Of course it is. Which is why the phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is false. You’re just confirming it yourself with your “everything is relative” and “to the esteemed members of the ivory tower with completely formed and immensely folded brains, ethics is an intricate and nuanced spectrum”.
What a reductionist take, especially considering the paragraph you’d written just above it.
Yes, thank you for confirming that you understood nothing of what I wrote.
So just die I guess?
That’s a pretty ridiculous take.
No, Maggot. Think before you consume.
Yes, exactly why I said it’s a platitude. It’s thoughtless and trite. I’m saying: consumption is not ethical, no matter which system. There is no ethical consumption.
That’s a false dichotomy…even if we agreed with your definition of all consumption being unethical, it wouldn’t mean that there aren’t different levels of unethical practices used to produce those consumables.
All consumption being unethical does not mean that all forms of production are equally unethical. If that’s the case you wouldn’t really have a problem with sending the kids back to the mines.
It paints consumers as mere puppets or robots who are unable to make choices or decisions that could lead to a reduction of suffering.
Can you point to a time in history where a general boycott of a dangerous or harmful product was successful without the help of government intervention?
Any other system created by humans is flawed and infected the human disease, doomed to create suffering and torment.
And apparently that doesn’t happen under capitalism? Then what exactly are you bitching about plastic for?
“ethical consumption” in any other living system is wishful thinking. It doesn’t exist.
Again, your argument is based on a forced false dichotomy.
Not to mention that it seems like you are really just a libertarian angry at consumers for participating in the “free market”.
You can’t simultaneously believe that the free market is the best way to regulate the economy, but upset at the people for their consumption habits in a free market.
the other person’s reply is good so i won’t repeat their points,
but i also wanted to address the “romanticisation” of the “ol’ days”. Because i did not intend to do that, what i was trying to portray was that it was simpler in the context of the supply chain of your food and belongings. You knew exactly where all your things came from, and the process of creation and aquisition of goods was mostly contained within your village and the village nearby, with the occasional traveller looking to trade
It’s a response to the phenomenon where seemingly no matter what you buy, no matter where you buy it, somewhere along the supply chain someone got hurt or got taken advantage of, and the environment was most likely hurt as well.
I call this the Doug Fawcett Principle
good name for it indeed! The Good Place is a fantastic show
I like how you put paying as the bad thing instead of just using
Using is bad, but sometimes forced. Paying is most often voluntary and worse as it gives them even more power than just use.
I’m sorry, me heaters are set to 16°C 😢
In my defence they don’t go any lower than that for some reasonThat’s basically the minimum requirement to avoid structural decay. You should not be letting your place get any colder than that.
Some reason being that if you don’t maintain a certain temperature in your house you’ll get mildew problems.
True, but also let’s not just let ourself dash toward suicide. Society is not meant to sustain nudism in the middle of winter 24/7.
Just wear a sweater bro
Yeah how else will ChatGPT tell you how to distribute (a^2 +b2)(c2+d^2)? /s
My flat grows mold if I leave it under 18C for too long and my landlord doesn’t care 🥴
Mmmm, mold.
I’m right with you on that though. Small basement apartment with a concrete floor that was built in the 1930s. Yep. Mold.
Both uses are a problem, one is just more unnecessary than the other.
Being comfortable is unnecessary. If you’re not suffering as much as this guy, you’re the problem with society.
Is there a limit to comfort?
For me it’s about two hands. That’s where I max out.
People can get injured if it’s too cold. They can lose sleep, which is a problem over time. With our level of technology, life doesn’t ever need to hurt.
Exactly. The usual context of “comfort” contains an unsaid word: “sufficient”.
Yep. With the understanding that sufficient is different for everyone.
Not that different
Just don’t be poor. I haven’t lowered my temp… Ever. If I can’t wear shorts in my own house, I’m not interested.
This meme brought to you by a child in California that doesn’t know what real winter is. It was 20 something here last night and this dipshit thinks a sweater is gonna keep you alive though that.
I’m in the UK and have managed to get this far this year using just jumpers and the heat generated from folding at home on a couple PCs.
Nearly caved last week when temps dropped to around 0 but then i found my slippers
Right chilly today innit?
I walked to school uphill in the snow BOOOOTTHH WAAAYYYSSSS.
Ok cranky grandpa, go sit back by your space heater.
20 something
Sweater wont keep you alive
Wait till you hear about the latest tech: two sweaters!
I’m wearing two sweaters even though it’s only 10C (50F) here. I’ve never lived somewhere where it gets very cold, so this is very cold to me.
I lived up in the mountains for many years, there are risks of frostbite, hypothermia, and death at some temps and no amount of wool will save you. You need heat, most of that time I had a fire place, when I was in a tenant situation the heat was maintained by the management company and we only paid electric, and it was natural gas heaters.
Two T-shirts, think thin layers
I live in Canada and tbh I’m with the Chad on this.
Not saying “turn off your furnace” but energy use (and cost) baloons exponentially based on how hot you have your thermostat set at. Lower your thermostat to the point where wearing a sweater indoors is enough and save money. It’s not even just about the money, it’sresponsible energy usage.
And I’d be happy to subsidize the first X GJ/mo to help people keep themselves from freezing, but if people want their apartment to be the tropics that’s gotta be on their dime.
Same with electricity. I’ll subsidize keeping your lights on but I’m not paying you to mine crypto.
Another possible approach is to keep your home cool (keep it above 50 to avoid pipes freezing because that just sucks to deal with regardless of responsibility) and use a small like 200w heater pointed at yourself to warm up some. I live in a century old farm house and do that because it’s drafty as heck in parts of the house and impractical to fully heat the entire house to a fully comfortable temperature once winter truly sets in and it’s consistently around 0F
To be fair, you could wear winter gear 24/7. I lived like that for a bit. The real reasons we need heating are structural decay and pets. Pipes burst below 55 and pets don’t do well below 65.
There are real reasons to heat your house besides just wanting to be warm.
“Pipes burst below 55°” hahahahhah what now? “Pets don’t do well below 65°” what the crap is this nonsense. Pipes will burst after they freeze with water in them at a temp at or below 32°, the majority of breeds of dogs and cats will be just fine until it is freezing out, some dog breeds are okay below freezing.
The pipes bursting below 55° rule of thumb is because cold water is at ground temperature (aka very cold in the winter) and the pipes tend to be at the edges of living spaces so will be much cooler than the living space. Additionally, it doesn’t need to fully freeze to burst, just enough to create a blockage temporarily.
Basically, you never know what bizarre choices were made in the utility layout of the home someone lives in so giving a rule of thumb that has a comfortable safety margin is the safest bet
Pipes are often in crawl-spaces or other outer extremities of structures indirectly heated by the warmth coming from the living spaces of the structure, so 55F is a good rule of thumb in some climates.
Not everyone has a husky or Maine Coone for a pet. You wanna see what happens to a tropical bird at 45F? It will literally stop eating and starve to death.
And the pipes aren’t getting 55 degrees of heat. They’re getting whatever bleeds into their space and whatever the water is doing.
This is basic adulting shit.
Even plenty of dogs do not do well in low temperatures. I have a half-chihuahua/half-dachshund. He doesn’t have a very thick coat and he hates wearing sweaters so much that he will literally lie there and refuse to move until we take it off. We’ve tried multiple times. We’ve waited like half an hour and he won’t move, he’ll just lay there and whine until we take it off.
I can’t force a dog to tolerate clothing and it’s not like I knew he would refuse to wear a sweater when I adopted him considering it was in the summer.
Wait till you hear about infants. They are so tiny a human, they can’t deal with the low temps anywhere near as well as an adult, one of the kids that died in the TX freeze was 7. I’m sorry his family didn’t know about body heat and keeping children in the middle of adults to keep warm. I seriously feel grief over this specific loss of life. I just lived in very cold climates that you forget people who never had to learn how to live in extreme cold just don’t know about the basics. Don’t get too close to the fire, don’t sleep alone.
Just set your thermostat to 60 instead of 70
His entire point is no heat just sweaters.
Must be fun not to have any sensitivity issues and also live somewhere so south that a sweater is enough.
Except for baby, kids, convalescente people, handicap people, eldery, and people with a very cold floor and wall that offset the overall room temperature.
This is just extrastrong ableism.I won’t go into detail because it’s personal and a bit gross, but adding on layers doesn’t always work for me due to a disability. I just become even more uncomfortable, and my extremities are still in pain…
I know that feeling. I have both the layers and heater. But I’m still cold everytime I’m not moving and whenever I move too much, I need to undress to move properly.
Blood circulation in my hands breaks down completely when I get cold, so no. I will not be turning down the heat.
Fingerless wool gloves.
I’m not the person you replied to, but fingerless gloves don’t fix the big problem of your fingers being super cold due to the poor circulation. My hands feel just fine right now. My fingers, which were warm for a while today, have felt like they were suspended in ice water since the last time I was outside about 45 minutes ago.
I wish there were a good solution like that, believe me I’ve tried to find a good one that will allow me both warm fingers and manual dexterity and not be super uncomfortable (like tight rubber gloves or something), but I haven’t found it yet.
Electrically heated fingerless gloves?
The older I have gotten, the more true that has been for me. I’m in an enclosed room with its own electric heater and it’s plenty warm in here because I’m comfortable in a T-shirt, but my fingers have been like ice since I woke up well over an hour ago and they aren’t getting warmer.
This is the year my hands and feet started getting cold. It’s been… an adjustment.
I can’t remember when it started for me but it’s like a big red “you’re old now” flag. Sigh.
Right? No me gusta, I wanna go back to being 20 kthxplzbye.
I’m a very chilly person who loses dexterity fast. I find some quick exercises warm me up pretty well.
But yeah you’ve got to heat your space to a minimum of comfort
Gloves wear big ass gloves use gloves that make your hands look like Mii character hands big ass spheres attached to the ends of your arms zero functionality just big ol gloves
Meh I just deal with the purple arms
I wish I had control of the thermostat. It would be 60° year round.
Edit: Forgot Europe exists 60°F = 15.56°C
Also does any one still call it centigrade?
Bro said Europe as if the rest of the world uses shitty ass Fahrenheit
The United States, Liberia, Micronesia, Cayman Islands, and the Marshall Islands use Fahrenheit. It’s not just us. It’s mostly us.
That would be freezing to me, but we live in a place that rarely dips much below freezing and gets super hot with high humidity. Humidity + cold also sucks. We were like 23 today (70something) and have a number of days over 35 in the summer (with 90+ % humidity). I work outside in that heat so I’m much more acclimated to that
I’ve heard some people say it in England but dunno if it’s actually common there. Was only a tourist.
Americans should start building their houses like Europeans. Made from brick, mortar and good insulation. Your houses are made from wood and paper.
looks around at countless houses made from wood I guess northern Sweden, which gets below -30°c every year, lost its European status.
This is… Uninformed.
It does not have to be brick and mortar. The house with the best insulation I know is made of wood and straw bales.
You do realize that there’s insulation in those walls right. That’s the whole point of wood frame construction; you stuff the gaps between studs full of several inches of insulation. Besides, most of a homes heat loss isn’t through the walls anyways. It’s through any openings in those walls (windows, doors, etc) and through the roof.
Isn’t the whole point of woodframe construction to use wood?
Europeans still have insulation in the wall cavity.
Isn’t the whole point of woodframe construction to use wood?
Well, no. Not as such. The point was to not use brick. Wood was just very useful, cheap, and could be made uniform. Very similar to brick if near a brick factory. Cheaper if not near cheap but heavy bricks.
More insulation, double or even triple glassed windows. My in-laws have half the insulation on the walls compared to my parents, roof wise my parents got 2.5 ft insulation
Wood is a better insulator than brick actually. Sitting outside in the winter on a wooden bench would feel warmer than on one made of brick even if they are at the same temperature. A log cabin without insulation is better insulated than a brick building without insulation. Problem is that US homes aren’t log buildings but stick frames boarded up with cheap chipboard.
Such ignorant shit
./confidentlyincorrect
nobody can afford that here lol
Stop with this nonsense. This is the financial illiteracy that is being pointed out how Democrats lost because of the “economy”.
Housing purchasing went up in price for a short while but stopped increasing so rapidly. More Gen Z owns their home by 30 than millennials. The rate is on par with gen x.
Most people in this country can afford a house and the upper third can afford very very nice houses.
Source?
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich
You can dig the direct numbers out from opm as well.
Well good for them. I sure as fuck can’t.
Will clearly you represent everyone and nobody all at once.
Earthquakes would say otherwise for at least part of the US. Also, without full-time mechanical ventilation, that would be misery in a lot of the US. The climate is also different to some places in Europe and varies hugely on US region
There’s earthquakes in regions of Europe aswell, and climate varies by regions in Europe aswell.
So what would be the excuse for not using paper walls?
Look up brick and motor walls regarding their performance in quakes. Those motor joints (or interfaces when dry stone) are all failure points and that leads to a wall collapsing. It’s why you don’t see modern japanese buildings like that; they don’t meet code. If you want earthquake safety, wood or reinforced concrete are the materials of choice.
Also the walls aren’t paper. Even in modern Japan where I live they’re not and we have some interior walls with paper. I have no idea what you are on about.
Nothing wrong with wood as a construction material. The key factor is the insulation.
Never mind things like water, pets, children…
Some people think water tastes better crunchy
Pets? One of my cats found a nice solution for that: recruit some dumb human as her heating pillow. (The “dumb human” is me, by the way.) And when I’m not on the bed she sleeps inside a blanket folded in the shape of a pocket.
…although winter here rarely goes below 0°C, subtropical region and all that shit. If I was a bit souther I’d probably have some heaters in the bedrooms, and that’s it - there’s no reason to heat the whole house.
Yeah, nah, I’m on the side of the government paying for utilities. Human right to electricity. Figure out a system to prevent overuse, but everyone deserves to have heating and cooling when needed.
Figure out a system to prevent overuse
If we’re going down the “government should pay for it” route, then a good solution would be subsidizing thermal insulation. It’s a big investment upfront, but will save a lot of money for both homeowners and the government in the future. Not to mention the obvious ecological benefits.
I feel like it already is. Just not always from the government. I put three pallets worth of insulation into my attic(~$1500) and between the rebates from the gas and power company it ended up costing me like $350. I did have to front that cost though and the paperwork was kind of a pain. Had to draw a scaled picture of my house with the part of the living area covered with insulation on graph paper. They don’t pay for over the garage.
Just looked at what I bought again and insulation has gone way up in price. It’s close to $2500 now. No idea if the rebates also went up but I kind of doubt it.
That would require them to think long term and logically , Also i assume lots of companies would not like that they won’t be able to get as much profit.
Don’t get me wrong I definitely agree but there’s just so much things that would work better, be cheaper more efficient and better for the environment but that would cost money and not make much profit. Sometimes I have hope people will get fed up with this BS and change happens but mostly I’m skeptical.
Absolutely. We should be subsidizing anything and everything that helps decrease energy usage, especially in ways that mean we don’t have to make big changes to lifestyle. Though that’s a whole other discussion. :/ But utilities in general, electricity, water, Internet, gas (though if possible move that shit to electric) should be public and no cost at the point of use, imho
What temp is freezing in F? Is it still defined by the temp water freezes at, like in C, or do you guys have a different scale for this too?
32°F is freezing. 0°F (-18C) happens, but isn’t too common in most of the US.
32f is the same as 0c, and they’re both freezing. 0c is the temp at which brine freezes, but nobody really knows/cares about that. Where I live it down to -25f/-31c at least a few times a year, and normally you can expect at least a few weeks to a month below 32f/0c, but the last few years have been mild
0c is the temp at which brine freezes
I looked that bit up as it didn’t seem right, you mixed up ‘f’ and ‘c’.
Water freezes at 0c and brine freezes at 0f.
That’s a good fact though about 0f being the freeze point of brine, it’s helping me visualise the scale of f a bit better. Thank you!
Yeah @DharmaCurious@startrek.website that’s neat, never knew that!
(btw congrats on having accounts across the most instances I’ve seen!)
Also, gotta say, I love Lemmy, but it still weirds me out being recognized across multiple communities. Like, noticing the same users in one subreddit over and over, or being recognized in the sub is one thing. But on Lemmy I notice the same names pop up in multiple communities, and have had people continue conversations from one community in another because they recognize the username. It’s a weird experience. I feel like I’m in Mayberry. Lol
Made several because instances were going down left and right at one point. Lol. Finally settled on slrpnk, and only ever use this one when I accidently log into it without paying attention.
Whoops, yeah, typod that one. Sorry!
Not all of us carry that much fat around ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How does that prevent you from wearing warm clothes?
