cantrip

Yeah that doesn't help me understand what you're trying to say. What was your theory that I confirmed?

The opening sentence of the article gives the reason "why":

"One could be forgiven for assuming the blockchain tech and crypto industry is a male-dominated field."

I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.

The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."

I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).

I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.

I was clarifying in case the author of the comment was unsure what "carbon neutral" means. It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.

I don't think linking to a biodiesel lobbying group constitutes as evidence.

The article we're discussing is a good source.

Also, Brazil enacted a soy moratorium over ten years ago to combat deforestation.

You're limiting your "surprise" to the US, but that's not what I, or the article we're discussing, are talking about.

You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral. And anyway, I'm not asking if it's better for the environment than fossil fuels, I'm asking if the claim that it is carbon neutral is true or not.

So "too big to fail" you mean?

Are they carbon neutral?

Sure the initial carbon dumped into the atmosphere to plow the fields is a short term increase, but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them, which permanently adds more carbon into the atmosphere.

Definition of a theory is rational explanation that is unproven.

I'm not arguing what the global problem is. Condition of the donated clothing is not referenced anywhere in the article.

I'm arguing that what the author is saying is largely false.

No argument here. You cherry picked price data and accused me of cherry picking price data.

"No One Wants Your Used Clothes Anymore"

Notice that this is in the Opinion column. None of what's said here is even close to true.

Plenty of people shop at their local Goodwill or Salvation Army, where clothes are vastly cheaper than buying them new. Not only are they cheaper, but the clothes are often better quality.

Saying used clothes cost as much as new clothes and then citing an Indian blanket mill competing with Chinese manufacturers as evidence of this is disingenuous.

The fall was much quicker than the rise. There was little resistance. No one knows where the price will plateau. This has nothing to do with futures.

If the lack of joy is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain it absolutely can be prescribed.

Cliche nonsense or outdated Biblical advice actively hurts people in this case.