I think you can find better ways to spend your time.

Look around for openings at the bar where you can stand to order. It's customary to queue up behind the people already waiting, even if there are small gaps between groups. Don't try to squeeze into a small space or reach around people to get the barstaff's attention but do fill the full space of the bar where it isn't awkward to do so.

People are served in the order they arrived at the bar. The barstaff keep track of who has been waiting the longest. It's polite to allow people who arrived before you to order first, even if you end up at the front of the bar. If the barstaff try to take your order before someone who arrived first, just gesture to that person and say something like "I think they were next".

If it is busy once you have your drink step away from the bar so the next person can take your place. Cheers!

This feels like a bad idea. Let's look at some popular federated networks:

1. Anyone with a phone number can call anyone else with a phone number.
2. Anyone with an email can email anyone else with an email.
3. Anyone can setup a Matrix server and message anyone else with federation turned on.
4. There is one DNS system despite it being decentralised.

This feels like a modern day IRC netsplit and we will all lose. This decision needs to be reversed once better tooling / organisation is put in place. Blocking should be done at a different layer (e.g. call blocking or email spam filtering).

Mechanically Ventilated Heat Recovery system. It lets you get fresh air without losing heat / cool as the expelled air heats / cools the inlet air transferring its energy over.

https://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/...

Hi @tom@feddit.uk. This feels like MySpace all over again but I don't see you on my friend list.

This is different because it bifurcates the network. End users will have to understand which Lemmy providers federate with whichever others in a way they don't have to with email today. It also feels like the bar to classifying these two providers as malicious is a lot lower than with email.

I find myself largely in agreement with him.

It seems you can now categorise environmentalists into two distinct groups:

Group 1 prioritizes preservation over progress, insisting on halting all developmental projects to protect every speck of biodiversity. This includes everything from rare newt species to broader environmental concerns, which are used as reasons to oppose various forms of green energy initiatives such as battery factories, solar installations, wind and tidal turbines. The ironic consequence of this approach is that despite protecting individual species in the short term, long-term survival becomes more precarious as global warming accelerates unchecked.

Group 2, which I personally identify with, holds a more pragmatic view. This group acknowledges the inevitable environmental impact of green technologies, such as harm to individual species and certain ecosystem disturbances. Yet, they firmly believe that without expediting the implementation of green technology, we risk compromising the planet's overall sustainability.

While I understand and appreciate the intent behind the preservationist approach, I feel frustrated. In my view, their well-meaning actions might inadvertently exacerbate the very environmental crises we're striving to mitigate.

A quick "morning" and a quick "cheers" at the end of the day isn't required in London but I've always done it and found it has been reasonably well received.

"Tree Huggers" to me is a short hand for Group 1 but that is subjective and either of us could be right.

I think it is a big claim to say Starmer doesn't believe in the climate catastrophe, we should probably have a bit more evidence before making such a claim.

Out of interest did you join the party with the wave of others in order to vote for Jeremy Corbyn or were you a member of the party for years before this?

Those that prioritise preservation over progress have weaponised ecology to block development. They are sadly far from marginalised. For example a significant portion of NIMBYs abuse environmental law to block development from occurring near to them. You only have to look at the ban on on-shore wind for an example of this. People were worried about visual amenity, not ecology. That didn't stop them using ecology as part of their argument to get them banned.

In your opinion, which you are entitled to hold.

In my opinion it does go some way towards explaining it. I feel Starmer falls into Group 2 here and the outburst was directed towards members of Group 1.

I've felt very much the same way myself and found myself saying things like "fuck newt lovers" when what I actually should be doing is explaining the above and advocating for members of Group 1 to join Group 2.

❤️

You can say "Hey Siri, 15 minutes please"