I agree that they mix super bad.

Personally, why am I a bright green environmentalist? That’s because when I first came upon this criticism that we may not have enough raw material, enough energy, that there may be physical constraints in the natural world that prevents us to do large-scale transitions, I was still in engineering school in the hope of solving problems that the world has. So I took this criticism seriously. Deeply. I was there to help the world, not destroy it. So I did my homeworks. And also, you know, telling to an aspiring professional problem-solver that there are additional constraints to their problems is not a showstopper at all. Actually, that’s pretty exciting.

Do we have a limited amount of energy to do the transition? Do we have to count on a limited number of tons of cobalt? Are we going to miss some crucial exotic rare earth? Hell, are we going to have to create computers out of wood? That’s actually super exciting!

And turns out that no, when you do your homeworks, when you look about the quantities that are necessary, you see that the problems are mostly invented. There is a CO2 emission problem (and also several other GHG emission problem but CO2 is the main one). There is an oil depletion problem. There is a biodiversity destruction problem. There are tons of very real but pretty local pollution and ecosystem destruction problems.

That’s a ton of problems to solve, and we need to address all of them. We need to address all of them simultaneously. People are not talking enough about the biodiversity destruction in the ocean, in my opinion. It’s as important as the greenhouse effect. Because the greenhouse effect, if we are lucky, we may reverse it. Biodiversity destruction, we will never. But I don’t make a hierarchy in these problems. We need to solve all of them and we need to solve them fast.

I do make a difference though between problems that are real and problems that are invented for reasons that are not totally clear to me. We are not going to lack any non fossil mineral resource (I guess you could make a case for helium and some radioactive isotopes but that’s about it). Copper, Lithium, Sand, Cobalt, Nickel, any rare earth you can name We have no resources problem about it If you think we have a problem on these resources Go check what the USGS says about it. Mandatory reading: the definitions about reserves.

Is it even possible to have artisan/localized ways of producing these technologies vs the current status quo dependent on highly energy-intensive six continent supply chain and cheap hydrocarbon flows. Brushing aside these kinds of difficult questions with techno-optimism leads to bright green environmentalism.

The answer is yes. The thing is, we don’t brush them away, we demonstrate them away. Energy can be produced in a sustainable way, it can be done at a huge scale and that energy can be used for the mining and transport (the biggest mining machines are electric, diesel engines can’t provide enough power). It’s all mostly about energy. Actually when you dig up a bit there’s almost nothing that you can’t replace if you have abundant and cheap energy.

A few decades ago, you had to do the math to demonstrate that it’s possible to switch to sustainable energy at scale. Now you don’t even have to do the math, you just have to look at the transition path of several countries.

How are those raw ores being reduced both on a chemical and energetic standpoint?

The chemical part is in my opinion the only problem that there is in the extraction industry right now. not because of a lack of chemical components, we have plenty of this, but because of the way the byproducts are usually just dumped into the environment. And the reason why is not because we don’t have the technology to do differently, it’s because of the economic incentives. See there is a global market for mineral commodities and as they are mostly fungible you can just compete on price. How do you get the price down? You get the price down by having slave workers and by having zero environmental concerns.

The problem here is unregulated free market. We can do responsible mining, we can do mining with workers rights, we can do mining with environmental procedures. Thing is, it just makes the mineral 10 times more expensive. And why would a company buy an expensive mineral if they can have exactly the same thing for much cheaper? This is the problem to solve. Cobalt has the same physical properties whether it was mined by a unionized worker that uses an environmental responsible way to chemically refine the minerals or if it was mined by a teenage slave in a third world country.

To me, bright green environmentalism is about recognition that we have tons of technologically workable solutions, but that we need also a lot of social innovation to get out of the externalities that capitalism produces.

So personally, I’m not shy of criticizing capitalism and proposing alternatives. But they need to be credible and workable. They need to be holistic in the actual meaning of the word: they need to consider the whole system, technological, sociological, economical, political. Degrowth could work on some of these aspects but not in all of it, for a simple reason: most of the people don’t want it and dark greens have no solution to solve that crucial political problems than just pretending it doesn’t exist.

I dislike reality denial. I think that’s harmful to whichever problem you’re trying to solve.

Bah perso je vois pas la différence avec le twitter des débuts, qui était cool, ouvert, utilisable sur plein de clients différents, avec une API qui tout le monde pouvait utiliser.

Tu me l’apprends, c’est en mai de cette année

In February 2022, Dorsey joined the board of directors[80] of Bluesky Social, a Twitter spin-off developing a decentralized social networking protocol and app.[81][82] In May 2024, he announced he was no longer on the board of directors.[83][84][85] He instead endorsed X, which he called “freedom technology”.[86] In a 2024 interview, Dorsey said that Bluesky’s shift toward a traditional corporate structure and the introduction of centralized moderation tools were major factors behind his leaving the company.

Bon, donc ça confirme au passage que Dorsey est soit opportuniste, soit con, soit les deux. Et ce passage ne me donne aucune confiance supplémentaire en bluesky.

Like I said it describes intentions, not protection mechanisms.

Faut voir: si la moitié des instances sont gérées par d’autres entités qui doivent toutes accepter un changement d’API pour que le réseau continue de marcher, un move comme celui de reddit devient moins probable.

Nothing in the article about solarpunk describes such protections nor in the manifesto pinned here, mere declarations of intention. Don’t get me wrong, it is obvious to me that a solarpunk future is deeply anti-authoritarian but it is not only that.

This label describes the solarpunk position on the environmentalist cluster: neither light green (let’s just make ecology a consumerist trend) or dark green (We can’t change anything unless we abolish capitalism first, we are likely doomed anyway).

You are right that it does not state its position on the authoritarian axis but I find it fairly obvious that “radical social changes towards sustainability” and “more widely distributed social innovations” do not include the promotion of “innovations” like authoritarian states.

If you think this is a top-down movement, then who is at the top?

bright greens emerged as a group of environmentalists who believe that radical changes are needed in the economic and political operation of society in order to make it sustainable, but that better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social innovations are the means to make those changes

…

[B]right green environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the “tools, models, and ideas” that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions.

Emphasis mine.

Il semble possible d’avoir des “bridges” entre blusky et le fediverse, mais la question est de savoir à quels point ils dépendent du bon vouloir the bluesky et sont à la merci d’un API change unilatéral.

Sauf erreur de ma part, il n’y a pas d’investisseur dans Wikipédia ou Internet Archive. C’est une différence fondamentale, leur business plan est uniquement fondé sur des dons. La seule façon d’éviter la merdification, c’est de n’avoir aucun acteur dans la structure qui espère se faire de l’argent avec. Et c’est simplement pas le cas de BlueSky.. Donc là ils sont cool ils ont pas de pub et ils vendent pas je pense encore les informations de leurs utilisateurs mais quand les gens qui ont mis 8 millions de dollars sur la table vont se rendre compte que vendre des noms de domaines ça ne rapporte pas tant que ça qu’est ce qu’ils vont faire? C’est ça la question

Aujourd’hui. Quand est-ce que le grand public va comprendre la séquence de la merdification des sites? Tu commences un site en étant cool et sans pubs, à perte, et quand tu as quelques millions d’utilisateurs, tu le vends “la mort dans l’âme” pour quelques millions à des gens qui transforment ça en pompe à fric à coup de pub. Rince, répète.

On a vu la façon dont Reddit a changé, la façon dont Twitter a évolué. Bluesky fait des promesse comme avait fait Google, a une structure “non profit” comme OpenAI. Et dans 10 ans on va se demander comment ça a pu péricliter à ce point…

C’est encore l’ancien CEO de Reddit qui le dit le mieux:

In addition, I am continually astounded that people sort of trust corporations like they trust people. We can talk all day about how the current team is trustworthy and we’re not in the business of screwing you, but I also have to say that you can never predict what happens. reddit could be subject to some kind of hostile takeover, or we go bankrupt (Please buy reddit gold) and our assets are sold to some creditor. The owners of corporations can change - look what happened to MySQL, who sold to Sun Microsystems, who they trusted to support its open source ethos - and then Sun failed and now it’s all owned by Oracle. Or LiveJournal, which was very user-loyal but then sold itself to SixApart (still kinda loyal) which failed and then was bought by some Russian company. I am working hard to make sure that reddit is successful on its own and can protect its values and do right by its users but please, you should protect yourselves by being prudent. The terms of our User Agreement are written to be broad enough to give us flexibility because we don’t know what mediums reddit may evolve on to, and they are sufficiently standard in the legal world in that way so that we can leverage legal precedents to protect our rights, but much of what happens in practice depends on the intentions of the parties involved.

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/1sndxe/comment/cdzcwdf/

Oui à la place il se fait financer par un cryptobro.

La technique peut s’améliorer, le rythme aussi surtout, encore un peu lent, mais qui s’améliore! L’écriture comique, c’est pas donné à tout le monde. Plein de courage à la personne qui fait ça!

J’ai aimé le “salut les connards!” de Macron. Complètement gratuit, complètement en ligne avec le perso.

Ou peut être qu’ayant réussi à se faire pas mal d’argent en vendant twitter à un facho, il prévoie de faire la même chose avec bluesky?

Je comprends vraiment pas comment c’est pas se refaire avoir par littéralement la même personne!

jlai.lu et /r/france ont le droit d’avoir des règles différentes.

Je dois avouer que je comprends pas: Bluesky c’est le créateur de Twitter derrière. Pourquoi espérer un dénouement différent?

Pareil: https://piaille.fr/@ktp_programming

Mais j’y suis pas souvent

Arrête de lancer gratuitement comme ça des idées que tu peux facturer 100k à la présidence via des cabinets de conseil!

Note que le privé, c’est pas forcément des société capitalistes, ça peut être des assoces ou des coops. Perso je commence à voir la résistance de ce coté là aussi. C’est un peu l’histoire des mutuelles et des premières caisses de prévoyance.

On pourrait commencer par le minstère du budget. Je doute qu’un LLM puisse faire pire que Bruno Le Maire.