This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
265 submissions to environment
247 submissions to Worldnews
179 submissions to news
158 submissions to science
126 submissions to energy
This user has so far shared a total of 1516 links, started a total of 6 discussions and submitted a total of 557 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 2557 and downvoted 139 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 2158 and downvoted 517 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
'You Betrayed Us.' Thousands of Customers Email Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Other Companies Who Signed Letter Endorsing CISA, submitted: 9/24/2015 9:01:53 AM, 556 points (+564|-8)
Musk, Wozniak and Hawking urge ban on warfare AI and autonomous weapons, submitted: 7/27/2015 1:12:59 PM, 472 points (+475|-3)
Internet-scale anonymity: Researchers unveil high-speed Tor alternative, submitted: 7/26/2015 8:32:51 PM, 315 points (+317|-2)
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Politicians, Stop 'Cherry-Picking Science' for Political Gain, submitted: 8/5/2015 9:56:42 PM, 302 points (+321|-19)
Study: We've wiped out half the world's wildlife since 1970, submitted: 7/31/2015 4:08:12 PM, 175 points (+198|-23)
5 lowest rated submissions:
How global warming is delaying flights, submitted: 7/21/2015 4:23:20 PM, -3 points (+1|-4)
Mobil oil spill produces toxic result for Hallmarc, submitted: 7/21/2015 7:35:05 PM, -2 points (+1|-3)
The Yes Men's solution to California's drought: if you eat beef, don't wash, submitted: 7/22/2015 3:45:57 PM, -2 points (+2|-4)
Projecting the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change on Montane Wetlands, submitted: 9/5/2015 2:49:28 PM, -2 points (+1|-3)
How Republican-led Climate Denial Threatens the Future of the Entire Planet, submitted: 9/16/2015 4:13:43 PM, -2 points (+2|-4)
3 highest rated comments:
vicarious 2 points 47 points 49 points (+49|-2) ago
Absolutely not, for many reasons :
- Computers fail, they get bugs, they get hacked, they need maintenance, upgrades, etc.
- It would make a freak out of me, relation with other humans wouldn't be symmetric anymore. Try having a conversation with someone who wears Google Glasses...
- I don't see how that would improve my life as a human in any significant way. I can use a normal computer when I need to.
- It would mostly be a distraction, I'd be constantly blinking and rolling my eyes doing tasks with my internal computer instead of being here and there in the real world.
- It would probably drive me clinically insane in the long run.
vicarious 2 points 42 points 44 points (+44|-2) ago
Disagreement is based on rational argumentation, expressed with respect.
Hate speech is mostly irrational emotional name-calling.
vicarious 10 points 32 points 42 points (+42|-10) ago
That's great, and I believe Tesla is doing ok so far. That being said, what Elon Musk forgot to tell us is that the raw materials needed to build his electric cars, solar panels, batteries, etc. are also in limited supply, one day we'll run out of them. You'll never see ten billion people driving around in EVs with solar panels on the roofs.
The whole idea of a coming age of "green" techno-utopia - so pervasive in our culture these days - is just an upgrade to the myth of perpetual growth based of fossil fuels we've been living in. We have to address extractivism as a whole, not just the fossil fuel part.
3 lowest rated comments:
vicarious 12 points -4 points 8 points (+8|-12) ago
You are new to Voat, no? Don't you know that 165 billion Muslim rapist murderers have invaded our SJW libtard dumacracies and roam the streets with their blood dripping hatchets, stealing our wives and eating our babies ?
vicarious 4 points -3 points 1 points (+1|-4) ago
would further hurt the American economy
The unpopular fact that Americans are going to have to face sooner than later is that US lifestyle is the most unsustainable on the planet and that ultra-consumerism is one of the main causes of the global environmental problems we have today (climate being only one part of the issue)
vicarious 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
Here's some reading for you, a study where the authors "analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011" : Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature