Yes. If you copy /home to a completely different drive, do make sure to be intentional about access rights (i.e. in your new install, you want your files to belong to you again and you want scripts to still be executable; sorting this out after the fact is possible but can be time-consuming) and make sure to copy hidden files/directories (i.e. .dotfiles, which is where user preferences for your apps are stored; if you want e.g. your Firefox bookmarks and tabs to remain with you, keep these files).
Upgrades/downgrades can always cause issues, but more often than not you're totally fine, especially during upgrades. I tend to declutter my home a little too. E.g. I keep the configurations for Firefox and Thunderbird but delete their cache, for Inkscape I may keep my custom palettes only. For a lot of Gnome tools, I just delete all the configuration, especially for stuff that I only use once a month. However, the major issue during that process for me is that accidents happen occasionally.
i can imagine this would speed up distrohopping by 10x
I am confusion. It seems like this wouldn't help much with distro-hopping at all. At least not the way I learned to reinstall OSes, i.e. keep /home and make sure to back up important config files you edited.
And there were planes in the air last year too, despite me not using one. That's proof that my actions count for less than nothing, thanks!
I said veganism is one effective climate-friendly thing you can do individually. I did not say that one person becoming vegan stops China or Brazil or anyone else in their expansion of animal farming. I did not say that you should stop advocating for change or stop making other changes to your life.
The one positive point is that methane-burning power plants can be spun up in under an hour whereas coal plants usually need a week to power up. If the vast majority of power comes from solar/wind/batteries and gas is only used as (secondary) backup, this may make sense.
Fossil marketing pretty successfully tries to eradicate the caveats and nuances from the discussion of course.
That really depends on how dark you need your veggies.
as well as common food additives.
And you can often avoid them easily. Granted, you may be US-based which may make finding good food harder.
I don't think the climate impact of lab-grown meat (when, not if, it is perfected) would be anywhere near the emissions of CAFOs.
As yet, that's entirely unclear. Right now, most of the companies in the space are pretty tight-lipped. We know that at scale, these companies will need a ton of electricity and they will also need input nutrients, aka perfectly human-edible plants. Some of the calories going in will be lost. How much, we don't know, because right now these companies have no scale and are mostly in a transitional phase where they are replacing animal-based input nutrients.
That's an absurd area to focus on
Going vegan is an immediate, effective, and cost-neutral climate-positive thing you can do individually. It can shave around 1 to 2t of CO2e/year from your impact and it also helps with a host of other issues (water, land use, species extinction, animal cruelty, ...).
15% of global CO2e emissions are from agriculture, the vast majority is directly or indirectly caused by animal agriculture. That number is higher in countries with a high-meat diet.
Reducing land use actually allows for rewilding, thus allowing for offsetting additional emissions.
in place of
"I can't do thing X because I am doing unrelated thing Y" seems like a logical fallacy.
targeting CAFOs,
The only thing to replace those at scale, right now, is plants. "Grass-fed" is sleight-of-hand bushlit. Lab-grown meats at scale are probably ten years out from now.
As usual, there's no need for a complex technological solution that's worse than the solution we already have.
I say "as usual" because there are a lot of these: public transit v/ self-driving/electric cars; packaging deposit systems v/ plastics recycling; just consuming fewer products v/ CO2-optimizing bullshit products; ... The commonality between all of these examples is that the underlying conflict is public benefit v/ some investor getting rich.
car emissions, jets, etc. that actually are significant sources of emissions.
No doubt these need to be targeted as well — but for one, individually, you (probably) can't do much about any of them. For two, if you can optimize or help influence decision-making, go for it.
Lab-grown meat is certainly going to be less climate-friendly, less healthy, and more expensive than legumes, whole grains, and nuts (and most processed products made from these ingredients[1])—e.g. red meat is carcinogenic no matter what the source is. For the moment, lab meat is mostly a venture-funded pipe dream.
On the other hand, legumes, whole grains, and nuts are scaled, cheap, healthy, and proven in pretty much every way.
[1] There are pitfalls, of course, such as products that include things like carrageenan, saturated fats, artificial colorants, or too much salt. But you can check for those and skip the offenders.
That ONE trick EU bureaucrats hate: After German drug store chain DM lost a lawsuit over the term, they have now switched to using "environmentally neutral" on own-brand products. Although, maybe they're just waiting for the next lawsuit to be brought against them. (The products so labeled are generally a little bit better than the regular products but they still heavily rely on CO2 compensation.)
This is connected to Brexit, sure, but I am almost certain (it's not mentioned in the article though) that the landlord for the property is not the UK government but rather a private enterprise of some sort. So the EMA having to move out is not the fault of the landlord, really. The realistic options are spelled out in the article: the space stays empty until 2039, the EMA find someone who wants to sublet it, or EMA/UK gov/landlord find a deal together. I don't see the EU just ignoring its obligations as an option, not least because the EU-UK relationship is still important.
Cookie banners would not be necessary if companies weren't trying to do shit with data, specifically personally-identifying data and personal-behavior data. If they were just running simple analytics over everyone, there would be no need for "cookie" banners, even as they used cookies. Instead, mainstream sites try to figure out my personal click paths and then associate that with a mail address I typed into their newsletter form accidentally but didn't click Submit on and then combine their data with data from millions of other websites assocuiated with the same email. The EU never said that all websites have to use blatantly non-compliant services from Google, Adobe, and tons of others.
Even the term "cookie banner" is a total misnomer here. "Extraneous and third-party data collection banner" would be much more honest, as cookies are a symptom but not an issue on their own.
This is not a failing of the GDPR. This is a failing of web designers, corporate marketing structures, and the legal system (specifically that of Ireland).
This is some scary shit. I guess we can remove the prefix "post-" and just call her "fascist."
What's more, the EU as a whole turning fascist starts to become a more realistic prospect. The most populous, traditionally most influential countries of the bloc all seem to have rising extreme-right influence.
Yeah ... My cursory knowledge about Purism says that's a very risky investment.