You know, instead of going from “Harris did address it” to “Climate change isn’t important”, you could have just said “I didn’t read the article so thanks for pointing out the actual message of the article, here is why I agree/disagree with it”. You know that’s a completely ok thing to say, right?

Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.

It’s been brought up in previous debates as well. Again, the article mentions that. The message of the article is how little it gets addressed given how much of an important topic it is for voters. Even if it does get brought up in the debate saying “The amount of time for it as well as the points made were not enough” is still a very valid thing to say and that’s what the article is about.

The article is more of a critique on the political landscape surrounding climate change in America for the past 20 years. It mentions all the presidents since Bush and how the talk has changed but the fact that it’s still not enough. Despite it being a big issue for voters.

But for more than 20 years, the networks running the presidential debates — and the candidates on the debate stages — have decided that climate change is simply not critical enough to voters to warrant substantial attention. Never mind that more than a third of voters in the U.S. say that global warming is “very important” to their vote, or that an additional 25 percent say they would prefer a candidate who supports climate action — to pundits, climate change is an ancillary issue. Very soon, however, this will have to change. Polls show that climate change is a top issue for young voters in particular, and that 85 percent of young voters can be moved to vote based on climate issues.

It does critique her stance on fracking but I consider that fair game since she did vote for it and advocate for it in the debates.

As Kate Aronoff wrote for The New Republic, Harris could have put forward a number of facts about fracking’s failures, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. Oil and gas companies depend on billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, for instance, including a massive bailout during the pandemic in 2020. “Fossil fuel companies thought [fracking] was too expensive to be worth doing until the federal government poured billions of dollars’ worth of funding into basic research and tax breaks,” Aronoff wrote. “But leading Democrats, including Harris, seem incapable of talking about the downsides of fossil fuel production.”

This is not a situation in which everyone, including oil and gas companies, can get a slice of the climate solutions pie. Science shows that fossil fuels must be phased out expeditiously for the health of the planet. But the severity of this crisis — and the aggressive action necessary to abate it — is not adequately captured in Harris’s debate response. In fact, her embrace of fracking and her focus on boosting oil and gas development alongside clean energy production is emblematic of one way in which Democrats and past Republicans have historically overlapped on the climate issue.

The current top comment to the thread you linked to answers the question. Short answer is lemmy.world is now excluded from the numbers to avoid further centralization of uses to that instance.

Beautiful 😍.

To be fair, it’s only me drinking it and I typically make it only during work days. But yeah it’s pretty nice to have. I’ve been getting syrups to flavour the lattes which makes it even better.

Edit: The bags I get are about 1kg which is about 32oz.

You’re perfect ❤️.

I have an espresso machine, so I just buy a bag of beans that I grind myself for about $15 Canadian. A bag lasts me at least a month, usually more. The only other expense is I do use more milk than usual since I make lattes.

To increase engagement, I propose we have some idiots volunteer to respond to every scientific article and achievement on Mastodon with ridicule and skepticism.

I don’t like how correct you are.

Her secret weapon is addressing that generations top concerns?

I honestly don’t know if they do or don’t have. I’d imagine it also varies by region. I just know schools have started giving out laptops to kids to take home if they are needed.

These aren’t necessarily the computers you and I grew up on where they had a dedicated computer lab room for use during class time. These are devices they take everywhere with them, even home. Now imagine some creepy school IT administrator decided to peek on the Webcams of kids while they’re on their room?

Are the lights attached to the side wall as opposed to the ceiling? How high are they?

Agreed, these people were completely fine with subpar leaders for a long time. They only jumped ship because they saw it was sinking and they’re interested in self-preservation.

I’d actually be curious to know if melting ice caps makes oil drilling more or less hazardous in this case.

But 100% agreed on not trusting oil companies to be mindful when doing anything there. We may also be hearing some formal declaration from the US saying the penguins have WMDs and are anti freedom in the not so distant future.

The unwillingness to spend has some party operatives concerned state Democratic leaders are failing to effectively counter an opposition that has seized on the amendment’s expansive language pledging rights for LGBTQ+ people. The so-called equality amendment would ban discrimination against “gender identity” and “pregnancy outcomes,” adding to current constitutional protections for race and religion.

Maybe make the fight more about abortion then? Banning abortion is already wildly unpopular with most voters. The policy would just advertise itself.

Even if it somehow gets reinstated, the damage is done. Majority have already left for alternatives.

“Folks, please line up and walk in an orderly fashion to your death. We have lobbyists and genocidal warmongers to appease.”