MammyWhammy

Well everyone who's eaten a tomato has either: A) already died or B) is going to die

I like the concept. I don't know how it would work in practice.

I think it would ultimately end up fragmented, especially when funding gets involved.

Who makes the decision for what gets funded? What is that decision process?

I think there will be space for a community funded news non-profit, but also I think NPR is already primed to fill that void.

I think an aggregated approach is more "Fediverse" like. But once again, who decides what does/doesn't get published?

I think if those decisions and how they're made are transparent, that would increase credibility, but it would end up being silo'ed because people like to read/watch things that they already agree with.

As I said earlier, I think PBS & NPR are primed to take on this kind of role. Personally I would love some more non-profit news reporting organizations.

It's a shame they won't be dying for a Christian nation then.

It's kinda is yes.

But more specifically to this post, the UK and Norway both discovered oil in the North Sea around the same time and took very different approaches to hope to manage this new resource.

Norway treated the oil money like communal property and heavily taxed oil production. Norway used the taxes to further develop oil drilling and exploration technologies, so that they would still have access to harder to reach reserves in the future BUT more importantly the oil taxes had to benefit Norway as a whole after the oil is gone.

The most obvious result of this is the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is basically an endowment with the intent to continue to improve the lives of all Norwegians for future generations. Norway uses the dividends from this massive investment portfolio to continually support the welfare state reducing the tax load on its citizens.

The UK, under Thatcher, just used the oil taxes to cut taxes elsewhere. The problem is, the easy to reach oil is long gone. The new technology to reach remaining oil reserves is increasingly expensive AND there's no more oil money coming in. So now services are being cut and some politicians want to privatize others to make up the funding gaps.

There's plenty of other factors at play, but at the end of the day the UK took a short term economy approach while Norway took a long term communal approach to the same scare resource at a similar point in time. Norway is still seeing the benefits to their approach while the UK has nothing to show for theirs.

Even having the glass tap I thought was too much...then BAM full body rocky shot

Good policy is way less profitable

Why don't all of the left leaning politicians then make it a point to just continually schedule 1 on 1 meetings with him?

Amazon studios did a good job with Fallout Season 1

I don't trust any driver based on the brand of their vehicle.

/rant

I just so want causes like theirs to succeed. But to succeed you need to play to win.

Also the Sierra Club, an organization that exists "To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth" shouldn't be lobbying in labor rights issues. It muddies their actual goals.

All of their members can, and should, organize for those causes, but the larger organization and local chapters themselves shouldn't.

Focus on the goal not the noise. Build bridges where and when you can. Someone doesn't have to be "all-in" to be an ally.

Another recent Sierra Club example, is the Sierra Club opposed new renewable energy projects in Puerto Rico because it would require developing "ecologically sensitive areas and land with high agricultural value."

Once again, valid enough. However, now instead of some renewable power generation in Puerto Rico, the Sierra Club stopped progress on an energy transition project. Puerto Rico is sitting around 87% of power generation coming from fossil fuels.

What's better for the environment of Puerto Rico in the long run?

They continue to lose sight of the forest for the trees.