

This happens sometimes with Lemmy because of reasons. I don’t know exactly why, but I have that problem with a lot of people’s posts, too.


This happens sometimes with Lemmy because of reasons. I don’t know exactly why, but I have that problem with a lot of people’s posts, too.


deleted by creator


Because I know plenty of people like pictures just as much as I do…



I want to know where they live that 91 octane is only $4.01 per gallon.


If I recall correctly, the amount came from a national study of the technical debt, if you will. For example, my city is a fairly large city, more than a million people, and it’s using pipes that are over 100 years old, so that’s probably not good, right?
Its a typical situation.
I do agree, we should tax the rich. Even if we magically had the funding yesterday, there are an astonishing number of complexities involved in fixing the aging infrastructure, not the least of which is the zero downtime tolerance.


https://www.waterloop.org/a-2-trillion-wake-up-call-for-drinking-water/
This is just the first search response, there are probably better ones. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.


That’s not exactly accurate. The problem is that everything in infrastructure was working just fine, and so they figured they could make it more efficient by reducing the staff. And to do that, they put everything online, so it was controllable by fewer people. And they kept doing that year after year. The funding went down and down and down, and there are literal, uh, literal policies that keep them from switching to better stuff. So it’s much more complex than the way you draw it.
For example, US water infrastructure would need $2.1 trillion or something around that amount to actually become current and fully repaired.
Where exactly would that come from? It’s not an easy answer. It’s a much more complex problem. That’s all I’m saying.


There are literally thousands of water infrastructure facilities that are on Shodan now. I take your meaning, but it’s a very bad thing.


This makes me sad for two reasons, one of which might actually be posted in this thread, and that’s that it’s gonna make it harder to see idiots from a quarter mile away. The second of which is my own personal gripe, and that’s because I can’t sing the Cybertruck song anymore.
To the tune of the Spider-Man song: Cybertruck, Cybertruck, only driven by a massive fuck Cybertruck, Cybertruck, only driven by a stupid fuck


That and those straight edges kill pedestrians, like they just cut right into them when you have that much force, it’s unavoidable.
Consider the average hood of a minivan. It’s a giant-ass vehicle. It could definitely kill people easily, but the hood is sloped, and the bumper is low, and all the corners are very rounded, making it much safer for pedestrians should a collision occur.
Posted blur wave memes FOR THE GLORY OF THE EMPIRE


He broke the law. He should be punished.
Maybe you misunderstood the question…


Correct, and what’s the root cause of the problem here?


Dr. Guillotine would like a word…

I read recently that they found bacteria in the ocean that’s actually metabolizing some (PET) plastics, so that’s kind of interesting. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251104013023.htm


This is fantastic, but from what I understand they use randomized OUIs, so wouldn’t they be undetectable or at least unreliable in detection?


Via con huevos, my friend!


Deet makes plastic foggy.
First, I apologize for sounding dismissive. That wasn’t the intent.
Honestly, given the obvious low effort of your reply and the low quality of the content of your reply, I am not inclined to acquiesce to this request. Try harder.
For example, if you were to list specifically why it is “biased AF” and give a detailed analysis instead of just throwing words around. I might respect your viewpoint or opinion, as it is I do not.
I didn’t come here seeking to prove anything, and if that’s what you want, you can do it on your own time.
Also, you response is too abrasive to elicit the action you request.
Actually, I even question the motives behind your words, so perhaps you can make those clear as well.
Please note, the link to the original report is within the source you dismissed.