beeinträchtigenden Inhalten oder Verhaltensweisen

Welche Inhalte oder Verhaltensweisen genau darunter fallen, bleibt der zuständigen Regulierungsbehörde überlassen. Jedenfalls reicht schon aus, wenn das Angebot nur eines der folgenden Merkmale aufweist: Automatisches Abspielen von Inhalten; endloses Scrolling und ähnliche Verhaltensweisen; ein Empfehlungssystem (ausgenommen Suchergebnisse), bei dem mehr als ein Drittel der vorgeschlagenen oder angezeigten Inhalte nicht von den selbst ausgewählten Kontakten des Nutzers stammen; […]; Push-Nachrichten (ausgenommen Benachrichtigungen über individuelle Kommunikation mit selbst ausgewählten Kontakten, ausdrücklich abonnierte Inhalte oder die Sicherheit des Nutzerkontos); Anreize, zur Erhöhung der Interaktion mit der Plattform oder Inhalten anderer Nutzer.

das sind alles sehr sehr wichtige punkte die da angesprochen werden. denn genau diese süchtig machenden elemente sind es die so gefährlich sind.

wie bei zigaretten, der größte schaden entsteht nicht durch den rauch, sondern durch den suchtfaktor. denn der treibt dich dazu, jeden tag wieder rauch zu inhalieren, was den großen schaden anrichtet.

Der Weltmarktpreis für Weizen hat halt auch nichts mit den Herstellungskosten in Deutschland zu tun. Schon gut, dass da die hiesigen Preise nicht steigen.

die hiesigen weizen-preise sind schon gestiegen, aber bauern machen das geschäft langfristig, d.h. der vertrag wurde letztes jahr abgeschlossen, zum damals noch niedrigeren weizenpreis. daher profitieren die bauern jetzt nicht vom heute höheren weizenpreis, das kommt dann erst wenn der vertrag fürs nächste jahr abgeschlossen wird.

das mit dem biomüll ist so ne sache. früher (mittelalter) war es z.b. auch üblich, menschliche fäkalien als düngemittel in der landwirtschaft zu benutzen. heute ist das illegal weil menschliche fäkalien häufig mit schwermetallen und medikamenten belastet sind, die sonst am feld und daher in der nahrung landen.

wie das bei tiermist ist, weiß ich nicht.

naja. also dass der getreidepreis steigt wenn weniger davon da ist, motiviert halt auch lagerhallenanbieter dazu, getreide für knappere zeiten vorzuhalten, und das ist schon ne gute Sache. abgesehen davon sind es hier ja wohl nicht die deutschen bauern, die die krise überhaupt erst verursachen. daher führt das “profitieren aus der krise” nicht dazu, dass sie die krise erst anfangen.

In einer Modellrechnung ist es so, dass auf ein Brötchen, das vielleicht 50 oder 60 Cent kostet, nicht einmal ein Cent auf den Rohstoff Weizen entfällt. Insofern, selbst wenn sich der Weizenpreis verdoppelt, spielt es für den Brötchenpreis am Ende nicht wirklich eine Rolle.

Krass. Dass der Rohstoff-Preis nicht der alleinige Kostenfaktor ist war mir schon klar aber dass es so extrem ist ist dann doch sehr beeindruckend.

wieso? mülleimer hängen doch eh an jeder straßenecke

hmm i’m not entirely sure either but it seems like fediverse content should be easily archivable.

probably this is another engineering challenge to think about once that i have checks notes a few months of free time …

?

it helps to clarify one’s mind from time to time :)

a lot of lemmy servers use anubis to hinder bots. it’s quite effective actually. makes the bots do some hard cryptographic riddles before accessing data. insignificant for human users who only read 100 posts but significant for bots who want to read millions of posts.

meanwhile i’m using VPNs in browser’s incognito mode to not be tracked

That’s not what a VPN or incognito modes do.

VPNs prevent the site from attaching an IP address to the site visit, and incognito mode means that browser cookies routinely get scrapped.

yeah 100% agree. you’re feeding reddit when you post to it. none of that is gonna help the community long-term, as it’s all gonna land behind ad-ridden spyware paywalls. it’s only gonna shift power to the upper classes who then own the data.

well you know you don’t have to read my article if you don’t like it. you claim i’m solving a problem that’s only a small problem, not a big problem. meanwhile i assume that you’re not bothering if people play video games instead? because people need to take their minds of their immediate reality for a while? or sth

actually, there’s quite a few places all over the internet where this is being discussed, if you just google for “cosmology energy conservation”. spontaneously i found these sites:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1jnk2qy/energy_conservation_on_cosmological_scales/
• https://preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ (oh btw that blog post gets more readable if you use your browser’s “reader view” or try to print it into a PDF file)

Now while i acknowledge that reddit is not the peak insight level, and i can’t tell about that blog post, it does quite clearly state things such as:

But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)

I can go look for more discussion about this topic if you want to. Or you can just google it yourself. The issue is a bit complicated because it involves complicated mathematics though. So, the quote from the blog post is accurate: “cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about [this]: energy is not conserved in general relativity.”

also to be more picky about it: the second law of thermodynamics precisely states that energy cannot be converted with a 100% efficiency from heat into mechanical work / electrical energy. This (topic of energy non-conservation in cosmology) is yet a step further, because it argues not so much that 1 J of heat can be converted into 1 J of mechanical work, but instead it asks whether 1 J of heat can be converted into 2 J of heat. So it’s not about different types of energy being able to be converted into each other, but about the non-conservation of the sum of all of these energies.

edit:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#General_relativity

General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form.

If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.

yeah, actually, i am. or at least i suspect so.

the thing with energy conservation is that it mostly comes from noether’s theorem (or variants thereof) that state that as long as the laws of physics don’t change over time, no new energy can be created. you’ve probably heard about it. Noether’s theorem.

Now, what i’m suspecting is (but i have yet to do the calculation) is that while there is a conserved quantity in cosmology (as long as the rate of expansion stays constant), it is not what most people would identify as “usable energy” in their everyday life. So, you might have a quantity E that describes the total amount of energy in the universe, or in a region of spacetime that is defined by some comoving boundaries, but it does not translate to the intuitive picture of energy (light energy, mechanical work, heat energy) that most people use for practical computation. This could be possible e.g. because there’s an additional, negative energy stored in the “gravitational field”, which just means, we add an additional quantity (called the gravitational field) sothat the total sum of all energies stays constant. Yet, paradoxically, that additional gravitational field energy does not actually affect a local observer in any practical way. Just like you wouldn’t notice it at all, if the electrical potential dropped by the same amount everywhere in space at the same time, because the measurable electrical field strength is only the gradient (change over distance) of the electric potential, so if the potential drops by a constant everywhere, the gradient does not change. Still, if you have filled your universe with more positive charges than negative charges, the total electrostatic energy of the universe still drops (according to mathematics). The same happens with the gravitational field.

So, we have two types of energy: a useful one and one that we can probably not even measure, and while the sum of the two is conserved, either of them is not. And that’s what’s at play here.

edit: you might want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#General_relativity

General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form.

If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.

For asymptotically flat universes, Einstein and others salvage conservation of energy by introducing a specific global gravitational potential energy that cancels out mass-energy changes triggered by spacetime expansion or contraction. This global energy has no well-defined density and cannot technically be applied to a non-asymptotically flat universe; however, for practical purposes this can be finessed, and so by this view, energy is conserved in our universe. Alan Guth stated that the universe might be “the ultimate free lunch”, and theorized that, when accounting for gravitational potential energy, the net energy of the Universe is zero.

which is basically what i tried to argue in the earlier half of my comment, i think.

what about it?

is moniker called moniker because it’s a NIcK name or is nickname named after moniker?

67 rule btw

Es würde mich weniger stören, wenn sie nicht so extrem viel aufdringliche Werbung dafür machen würden. Teilweise klebt das echt an jeder Straßenecke. Wo hinschauen wo kein Plakat ist?

yeah, i was implicitely assuming the lambda-CDM model with a positive lambda, such that expansion continues forever at an exponential rate. while not 100% sure that this is the right model to describe how the universe behaves, it is the current standard model that most people use. it’s valid to criticize that choice of model as an (not justified enough) assumption.

frankly, we don’t have enough data to say with certainty how the universe is gonna develop long-term. and maybe it won’t actually continue to expand forever. i’m just assuming this here because most people do. and you have to start somewhere.

edit: in fact i’m glad that you asked :) it means that you’re an attentive reader. always check the assumptions that are implicitely made.