I really cannot stand that phrase because it’s commonly used as poor rationale for not favoring a superior approach. Both sides of the debate are pushing for what they consider optimum, not “perfection”.
In the case at hand, I’m on the pro-nuclear side of this. But I would hope I could make a better argument than to claim my opponent is advocating an “impossible perfection”.
Glad to see they are tagged. It could evolve more but the tags are the most important thing.
I think this project has some tools that might automate that:
https://0xacab.org/dCF/deCloudflare
They ID and track every website that joins #Cloudflare. It’s a huge effort but those guys are on top of it. A script could check the list of domains against their list. There is also this service (from the same devs) which does some checks:
https://karma.crimeflare.eu.org:1984/api/is/cloudflare/html/
but caveat: if a non-CF domain (e.g. example.tld) has a CF host (e.g. somehost.example.tld), that tool will return YES for the whole domain.
Manually adjusting availability is a can of worms that I don’t want to open
I would suggest not bothering with any complex math, and simply do the calculation as you normally do but then if a site is Cloudflare cap whatever the calculated figure is to 98%. Probably most (if not all) CF sites would be 100% anyway, so they would just be reduced by 2%. Though it would need to be explained somewhere – the beauty of which would be to help inform people that the CF walled garden is excluding people. Cloudflare’s harm perpetuates to a large extent because people are unaware that it’s an exclusive walled garden that marginalizes people.
So I have to ask why was this post which asked what is a decent client for Debian removed (per rule #3):
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/1681507
while at the same time this “What’s the best Android/iPhone app for Lemmy?” is not removed? Is it because the moderator created this thread & thus /above the law/, in effect?
Cloudflared services like ani.social are getting a “100%” available stat. That site may be up but it’s unavailable (denying availability) to something like ~1-3% of the population 100% of the time. So in principle it should never be able to achieve the 100% availability stat.
I understand it would be quite difficult to calculate an availability figure that accounts for access restrictions to marginalized groups, because apart from Cloudflare you would not have a practical way of knowing how firewalls are configured. But one thing you could (and should) do is mark the known walled gardens in some way. E.g. put a “🌩” next to Cloudflare sites and warn people that they are not open access sites.
The lestat.org availability listing is like a competition that actually gives a perception advantage to services that exclude people, thus rewarding them for compromising availability. I would also subtract off ~2% for all CF sites as a general rule simply because you know it’s not 100% available to everyone. They do not deserve that 100% trophy, nor is it accurate.
The #hvactrainingshop.com link is dead to me (it’s in an exclusive walled garden not openly available to all people [#Cloudflare]). I could not find a replacement link. If anyone has a better source, plz mention it.
The problem with that is it leaves little space for vegetation and soil, which give an outdoor evaporative cooling effect. The narrow streets approach should be combined with vegetated rooftops. An perhaps the vegetation should be able to thrive in the shade of solar panels.
Some US states solve this by making it illegal for a roofer to re-roof an uninsulated roof without adding insulation.
A radiant floor is just a heat transfer system that still needs a hot/cold source. Evaporative coolers (aka swamp coolers) are really the modern day equivalent.
Maybe as a supplement to Air Conditioners.
Swamp coolers only work when the outdoor air is quite dry (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico). The resulting indoor air is very humid. Swamp coolers cannot make a big difference in temp. In NM they are perfect because the air is dry (too dry for comfort, IMO) and you only need to lower the temp by a small amount. So the resulting indoor air quality in NM is perhaps the best in the world for those who like ~65—70% humidity. A lot of swamp coolers in AZ have been replaced with A/C because the city temps have increased¹ to a point where swamp coolers cannot make a sufficient temp decrease. So I wonder if an AZ residents kept their swamp coolers going & added A/C. Note that A/C dries the interior air, so I suspect the swamp cooler might actually be make the A/C work harder in that scenario. If anyone knows something concrete about this I’d be interested in hearing it.
① One theory on the temp increase in AZ cities is simply more and more concrete covering the ground (roads, parking lots, driveways), less soil and vegetation. This means rainwater is drained off instead of having the large scale evaporative cooling effect of soil & vegetation absorbing water temporarily until it evaporates. IMO one correction (apart from reverting parking lots to gardens) is to get roofers installing vegetated rooftops. I really don’t understand why #vegetatedRooftops are nearly non-existent in the US. Pick any city and call every single roofing company in the region, and most likely not a single one of them can do #vegetatedRoofs.
Thanks for pointing that out. My immediate thought upon reading the headline was how a/c could be implemented without electricity. I wondered if a compressor could be beast powered somehow. @[email protected] should correct the title.
emphasis mine:
First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.
Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.
So in short: