this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
792 points (98.3% liked)

Microblog Memes

7445 readers
2668 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Debatable.

If it causes them to go out of business, will it result in less co2 over time, despite the increase now?

If so, it may be worth it to speed up the process by adding "pretty please" and "thank you so much" to every sentence.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They'll go out of business either way.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes, but one way may be quicker. That is the difference.

Edit: think about it this way. If it continues as is, they will continue to get VC money. If they have 5 years of funding for the sake of argument, and they can stem the tide a bit, they can ride it out and add on more and more years from VC cash infusions.

If the bleed increases, depending on how much it increases, it could be less palatable to a VC. So they don't gain an extra round of funding, they have to close up shop sooner.

If it worked out to close them after 5 years through a 10% increase in CO2 output, that far outweighs them continuing for another 10 or 15 years and the CO2 that would produce.

The question isn't whether or not they will continue to operate, but for how long.

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago

God, I hope so.