Basically everything electronic is using some amount of water somewhere in its cycle
I have no clue where she's getting "20 gallons" from. An entire conversation with chatgpt uses 50 centiliters on average, which is about 151.5 times less than 20 gallons
Her claims are false, and even if they were true, her standard of water usage -- if applied to everything -- would basically preclude every part of western civilization. It's entirely reasonable to assume that she either knows that it's false or at least doesn't really *care* that it's false -- this isn't about water, it's about hating something her social circle told her was cringe. It honestly feels somewhat bad faith that you're addressing her claim as a factual one rather than an emotional one?
"this isn't about water, it's about hating something her social circle told her was cringe" -> yes! I think this is the point I was trying (and it seems failing?) to get across. This is why I started with the whole "group A wants B to lose more than they want to win". In this case they don't like that people are using ChatGPT, and are coming up with good, reasonable reasons to justify this dislike.
And what I'm trying to do is: how do you take that energy and flip into something productive/win-win? People feel strongly about these things, and at the very root of it is (1) My people are good people, I want to stick with them & I want them to win (2) there is a lot of evil in the world, and I want to fight it.
I think those are good things. I don't want to go around telling people NOT to speak out against things they think are evil, or to elevate their tribe. I think if they shift more towards effectiveness & truth helps them & helps outsiders of the tribe too. Does that make sense? (I appreciate your feedback, especially critical/constructive stuff like this 🙏)
An example of this dynamic is in the housing debate. Some people want housing to be more affordable, but hate capitalists, so they oppose zoning reform that would make housing more affordable because some companies would profit from it.
yes, excellent example!! I think matt yglesias maybe talks about this a lot? Or is there anyone you know who's written a good piece that spells this out? I'm very curious now to look out for this "in the wild".
This one feels like it has to come "from inside the tribe". Those who want to fix housing and hate capitalists will not listen to capitalists (because they don't trust they have their best interests in mind). You need someone who is still on anti capitalist to say "I'm on your side, but I think this is how *we* win". Related matt yglesias snippet: https://x.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1812127066566840813
"We can all agree that running heavy software on my own laptop isn’t going to waste any water resources"
No? It definitely does?
https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/how-much-water-our-electricity-uses
Basically everything electronic is using some amount of water somewhere in its cycle
I have no clue where she's getting "20 gallons" from. An entire conversation with chatgpt uses 50 centiliters on average, which is about 151.5 times less than 20 gallons
Her claims are false, and even if they were true, her standard of water usage -- if applied to everything -- would basically preclude every part of western civilization. It's entirely reasonable to assume that she either knows that it's false or at least doesn't really *care* that it's false -- this isn't about water, it's about hating something her social circle told her was cringe. It honestly feels somewhat bad faith that you're addressing her claim as a factual one rather than an emotional one?
"this isn't about water, it's about hating something her social circle told her was cringe" -> yes! I think this is the point I was trying (and it seems failing?) to get across. This is why I started with the whole "group A wants B to lose more than they want to win". In this case they don't like that people are using ChatGPT, and are coming up with good, reasonable reasons to justify this dislike.
And what I'm trying to do is: how do you take that energy and flip into something productive/win-win? People feel strongly about these things, and at the very root of it is (1) My people are good people, I want to stick with them & I want them to win (2) there is a lot of evil in the world, and I want to fight it.
I think those are good things. I don't want to go around telling people NOT to speak out against things they think are evil, or to elevate their tribe. I think if they shift more towards effectiveness & truth helps them & helps outsiders of the tribe too. Does that make sense? (I appreciate your feedback, especially critical/constructive stuff like this 🙏)
An example of this dynamic is in the housing debate. Some people want housing to be more affordable, but hate capitalists, so they oppose zoning reform that would make housing more affordable because some companies would profit from it.
yes, excellent example!! I think matt yglesias maybe talks about this a lot? Or is there anyone you know who's written a good piece that spells this out? I'm very curious now to look out for this "in the wild".
This one feels like it has to come "from inside the tribe". Those who want to fix housing and hate capitalists will not listen to capitalists (because they don't trust they have their best interests in mind). You need someone who is still on anti capitalist to say "I'm on your side, but I think this is how *we* win". Related matt yglesias snippet: https://x.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1812127066566840813
this is the piece I was thinking of: YIMBYism can liberate us from anti-capitalism
https://www.slowboring.com/p/yimbyism-can-liberate-us-from-anti