Yeah, i’ve noticed that batch behaviour Dav does, i imagine they must sit down in the evenings, catch up on the news of the day for themselves, then share the articles to Lemmy as they go.
I hope they actually read the articles though, feels fake to me when posts are just shovelled up and the user doesn’t seem to have taken the timebto read it themselves.
Because you’ve already posted this in overseas news?
Yeah, scrolling ‘Local’ these double posts do become a bit of a block. They are posted in different communities, i suppose.
Not in Sydney sorry, Perth, but still sick as a dog on Friday night. Spent the last two days in bed trying to be awake enough to say hi to the kids!
I think the worst part is over, just had a small but substantial enough dinner. Home-made Greek wraps for the win.
It’s also time to rethink how subsidies are structured, to reflect the fact some sectors are better bets than others. At present, the federal government’s Hydrogen Headstart program and the hydrogen tax credit are agnostic as to how the hydrogen is used, which does little to help demand emerge in the right places.
I can understand the argument against being too prescriptive, we don’t always know what technologies will come forward over the next few years, a tight subsidy regime could limit the scope, or hamper the development of new applications in hydrogen fueling technologies.
Yeah, feels a bit like that.
I recently took a trip down in the South West region of WA, logging is fairly big there to, at least very visible with all the trucks on the roads.
I’ve kinda come to the conclusion that we need to harvest wood as a resource, but that we’ve not been managing regrowth or the expense that entails at all well ever. And when it comes to wood and forrests thats what needs to change.
Whether its leaving old growth alone, having harvesting schedules measured in twenty to forty year timelines, not selling woodchips to over seas countries, (which just astounds me), Theres been little investment in long term thought and preparation for a resource we need.
Why is no one talking about it? I’d have thought since its so close to the population centres, it’d be pretty big news at least in Adelaide.
That means cutting climate pollution by 90 percent by 2035 and stopping approvals for new fossil fuel projects
There is no way thats going to happen. Sometimes these articles about a report and yhreat to put some part of the environment on an endangered list feel more like we’re shuffling deck chaira on the Titanic. Like federal Labor might react a little bit to the report, but they won’t do 90%, and would the Crisafulli government even bother reading a report like this?
I’m going to give you an argument describing why i think you’re correct but also why you’re getting pushback. I’m basing this off the greek discursive appeal structures i’ve been reading about lately, because its fun to try to apply them here.
Firstly, if people say its a great ‘scientific study’ where you hear it, correct them. Its sad but thats often all we can reasonably do. If they refer to it as a great study in humanity, then maybe it is. After all Supersize Me was about the mostly unconsidered and wildly successful upselling technique that had passed into the culture of the time. So, what does that say about us?
Supersize Me is an exercise mostly based on an appeal to Pathos. An argument based around an emotional appeal.
My stab at the key emotional switch employed would be turning the blasé attitude around the then common, comfortable upselling practice “would you like that supersized?”, to a feeling of angst when those words are spoken. I think Supersize Me was largely successful in that appeal.
Emotional switch: Blasé->Angst.
I found Michael Moore’s documentary styles also relied heavily on Pathos. So maybe the style was de rigeur at the time.
The big question is, did these documentary makers pass from persuasion into manipulation? This is the same as the question your asking when refering to his undisclosed alcoholism during filming. Which is why i think you’re argument that the documentary wasn’t fairly done is right. Theres a manipulation at its heart.
But that doesn’t defeat the very real effects that emotional switch from blasé->angst about the practice had.
So a successful but manipulative documentary?
The argument i read in your comments assumes the documentary should primarily appeal to logos. Or a persuasion tactic based in logic. No controlled experiments for example.
While there are probably plenty of examples of this throughout the documentary, I wouldn’t say this is the primary appeal he relies on.
The obvious conclusions of the poor diet is a good example of an appeal to logos. But not very persuasive on its own, because no one needed to watch it to draw the conclusion that poor diets equal poor health. At least most didn’t.
Its a documentary, its not necessarily an exercise in absolute honesty. Few documentaries can claim such an authoritative place.
I think its maybe why Louis Theroux has belatedly become so highly respected. Not because he was authoritative in the beginning, but so much of what he presented has since been borne out. Maybe his documentary series matched the changing realisations of the times, so have had a kind of Kairos?
Oh yeah thats a good idea. I’d probably get too lost with the contents of the articles if i didn’t post one at a time, even if i’d previously read them! But all power to someone who can do that!
Too true, that’d be my one current gripe with AZ, and Dev’s pretty big on that train.
Sometimes its just ABC articles followed by Guardian articles. Makes me worry AZs a bit stale with such a heavy reliance on those two medias.