Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@jdp23 @Quinnae_Moon@wandering.shop Huh, thanks! I wasn't aware of the Tumblr thing at all. I'll have to look into that more deeply.

@ben What'd I miss?

@BioFris@mastodon.nl Klinkt alsof het een Twitter-bridge is?

@stephen @eevee @SallyStrange@eldritch.cafe @aral And to be more specific about what I mean: you are making light of people complaining that "someone else does something with it that they don't like", as if that is somehow a ridiculous thing to do.

People are *correct* to complain about that. The problem here are not the people doing the complaining; the problem are the people doing the misuse.

@stephen @eevee @SallyStrange@eldritch.cafe @aral That's the problem though, you're not just talking about "this is how you stay safe" (which I imagine other abused folks already know from experience).

You're presenting it as if this is in any way a normal or acceptable situation, specifically as a rebuttal to "people should stop being abusive". *That* is what makes it apologia.

@patcharcana@furry.engineer Hmm, not sure what you mean with third-party DNS issues? Every VPS provider I've ever used pretty much *expects* you to use DNS services from elsewhere.

(I'm quite happy with various providers including Afterburst and PHP-Friends, though neither are the cheapest *possible* providers, for that you should probably have a look at LowEndSpirit)

@stephen @eevee @SallyStrange@eldritch.cafe @aral This is abuser apologia. It is not the job of the victim to try and avoid being abused.

@doot@glitterkitten.co.uk @zkat That's the most important part IMO, loudly maintaining the culture of it being unacceptable, and not letting the "but it's inevitable anyway, that's the way of progress" crowd take over the narrative.

That way there will still *be* people to work on more effective defenses if and when they become necessary.

@doot@glitterkitten.co.uk @mark Wait, which one is today's one?

@zens@merveilles.town That depends heavily on what you mean with "natural". Obviously, "do nothing and let nature sort itself out" isn't gonna be a solution, but that doesn't automatically mean that mechanisms like algae cannot be sufficient when deliberately/strategically applied.

Assuming that we must need to invent some futuristic technology (which does not exist yet and therefore we cannot actually apply today) is, to me, just the other end of the "appeal to nature" fallacy.

Maybe the answer *does* turn out to be that algae (and other "natural" forms of carbon capture) cannot be sufficient. But that should be verified and supported with evidence/numbers, not just assumed and preemptively excluded as an option!

Otherwise we'll just end up doing nothing and waiting for some hypothetical future technology to arrive (that maybe never will), all the while the problem gets worse.

@zens@merveilles.town Honestly, I suspect that the reason is more depressing than that; it just isn't shiny enough for the "climate techbros" who love to talk about futuristic carbon capture technology (that does not currently exist), and it isn't "grandfathered" into the conversation like trees are either.

@zens@merveilles.town Did you only do the math for trees, though? Because IIRC there are much better options like algae.