houseofleft

Sounds like it's working great for you- I wish it would for me too! I'm not OP but some of my main gripes are:

• Most calls have, for at least one caller, a wierd lag time where the call doesn't start for 10 seconds or so

• Quite frequently (I'd guess 5 calls a month) a call will be disrupted by teams failing completely for someone on the call (camera not working, not being able to join etc)

• It uses a lot of RAM even when idling

• It has hundreds of features, like "together mode" that bloat the software without adding to its core functionality

• The UI is a confused mess, and the conceptual split between teams, channels and chats is messyat best.

On top of that, I don't find teams makes me more productive, if feels like a constant distraction that modern corporate culture requires me to have, even though its a net drop in productivity. This last point is more on instant messengers as a whole, but it doesn't place me in a very charitable or forgiving mindset for interpretting Team' multitude of flaws.

Agree a gazzillion percent!! On the plastic front, there's some progress being made towards a UN plastics treaty which would legally bind countries to legal targets for plastic reduction. It's not perfect at all, and it's likely the US under Trump will ignore it, but would be a big win for plastic regulation (Green Peace and a bunch of other groups are campaining for its support- worth searching for local petitions if you're interested)

Water reuse is a great idea. Although it's worth pointing out that the UK looses 20% of it's water to leakage before it reaches anyone[0]. Private water companies taking a basic amount of responsibility for maintaining their assets would do a lot before even talking about water reuse, rain harvesting etc.

[0] https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/leakage-in-the-water-industry/

What are you thinking makes them hypocrites? Doesn't seem like doing something bad for the planet, then improving things is hypocritcal unless they start claiming they've always been perfect. At any rate, veats doubling down on petroleum like the US are currently doing.

That sort of makes sense, but then cars aren't stand alone things, they actively consume to travel. I guess it's a case of how much CO2 (I'm assuming we're ignoring other environment impact for now) is used in manufacture vs driving?

I don't have any data, but I'm surprised if a new electric is worse than a second hand ICE? What's your thinking behind that?

Never new about this! That's very handy

I live around deer forests and they always seem pretty street smart all things considered, pheasants on the other hand. . .

I obviously don't know anything about you other than that you're a lemmy user and I get your sentiment. Remember that there are likely those worse off than you as well as those with more, and those worse off will be more affected by the ongoing climate crisis.

I'm not gonna make you do anything, but by not doing anything, you're throwing those even worse off than yourself under the bus, in the same way billionaires are throwing everone worse off than them under the bus.

We don't all have to screw people over who have less power than us, even if that's what billionaires do.

Not sure why this is getting the levelof downvotes it is- it seems sweet and unobtrusive. Is vegan just like 20% anti-vegan people waiting to get up in arms about something?

Just to make the case for the smart meter. The UK energy industry is trying to bring something called market-wide alf hourly settlement into play, which is meant to make more energy use data available and therefore make it easier and more efficient to respond to changing demand.

Assuming you think it'll work, then smart meters will play a role in enabling greater renewables in a way that "dumb" meters can't.

I don't really like the idea of things being phased out so quickly either, but at least (unlike phones, TVs, computers, ebooks, smart watches etc) smart meters are being phased out to bring out to potentially lessen overall environmental impact.

I find this whole "it's not milk if it's not dairy" argument really hard to take in good faith.

I'm not an expert at all, but when I've heard people talk about these kind of decisions, it sounds like it's normally meant to come down to consumer benefits.

Who's gaining here (aside from dairy lobbies)? I don't think there's any reasonable argument that UK citizens are confused by the term "oat milk", and buying it because they were tricked into thinking it was a dairy product.