For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
www.healthyyards.org is the link in the image. I'm not affiliated with it in any way, I just hate when people put links in images and you can't click on them. Almost as bad as texting someone a QR code. Motherfucker, what am I supposed to do with that, get another phone to scan it?
Heal thy yards
Screenshot, share to binary eye, done 🥳
Kind of amazing that people still need to be convinced to wear helmets while riding.
You'd have a hard time convincing me to ride without one.
Same, but it's actually a charity I started recently to fundraise to buy bikes (and helmets) for teenagers who sign up for a cycling club at local high schools! There's a bunch of kids who are interested in the club but can't afford their own bike. Cycling is pitifully rare here in the US so I'm hoping to improve that in a small way 🙏
In that case, masterful self plug.
Where are you located in the US? I think I have a few unused bikes.
Thanks! South Carolina - details on https://helmetheads.club/ if you're actually interested in supporting, anything is appreciated!
Thanks! Unfortunately I'm pretty far from SC, but I'll see if I can contribute anything via the website.
People on here always talk about how lawns need a bunch of fertilizer to work, but that never made sense to me because we've never done that around here. But then I learned that's because everyone just has clover growing along side their grass.
Anyway I think shaming people for their lawn is a bad idea. I think killing your lawn will only catch on if it's presented as a way to make your lawn cooler. You're not a bad person for having a lawn, but you could change it into something so much more interesting by including native flora.
We have one that barely has any grass left. We are surrounded by meadows and there is so much just random plants growing. Don't tell me our lawn is bad since the obly difference between it and the surrounding meadows is that we mow ours.
Pretty sure the mowing is the exact problem. Can't remember if it's solved by using an old school push-powered mower or something
Edit - after looking into it, seems like push mowers don't help because Americans eating meat will cause as much pollution pushing a mower as using gas? Not sure
Why is mowing the issue? If you just leave it be it grows too tall.
It's wasteful
Would you prefer I cut it with a scythe? I already do that with a particularly steep part of the grass
I don't think I trust the studies saying human power is worse tbh. Cultivating food uses CO2, cows eat plants before we eat them, the plants drink CO2 from the air. Lawnmower takes power out of the ground and injects pollution in the air. Scythe has to be better
An electric mower runs on sunlight (at least mine does), at some point their batteries will be recyclable. They have to be better than both
Electric is definitely about as bad as gas for mowing a lawn. The gas you're not using is just being used by someone else, if not more, because you're helping subsidize the petrodollar economy by paying orders of magnitude higher cost for batteries+motors+solar power than you would pay for a push mower or probably even a gas-powered mower. But you also have to factor in the other environmental damage from manufacturing and shipping the batteries and solar panels which you make it really difficult to avoid by demanding the mower be electrified, whereas if the mower was push-powered it would be up to suppliers whether they feel like wasting their fuel shipping it across the planet or just manufacturing it with materials found closer to you
Solar power systems pay for themselves in four years, and typically last week in excess of 20.
It doesn't make sense to think they have more energy or material in their construction than they make, as then they would be more expensive
Any petroleum used in their production is subsidized by the petrodollar economy, though
I thought a push mower might help but some studies say it might be worse. I guess the recommendation is to plant something other than grass that naturally stays good to walk on, maybe? I'm still learning about this myself
Half the grass behind the house is dead anyway and was replaced by moss naturally. The issue is the moss would dry out faster and die in the summer. The current situation is probably the best
Because I'm also on a lot of cocaine and I've cleaned the entirer inside of my house to surgical standards.
Because of bullshit HOA rules.
City ordinances…
Bungalows have never been sustainable, tax and infrastructure-wise. We need a similar one.
Mayberry and cars were neat for the 50s, but we've sacrificed green space and agri space for bungalow sprawl. We either have to reduce people or forget single-level fire-trap houses and driving 20 min to a parking lot for daily needs.
I don't know where you live but I have not seen a new bungalow built in 40 years.
I've seen plenty knocked down to build a McMansion on though.
It's not an issue of the style of house; it's an issue of the lot square footage allocated to a single house (i.e. dwelling units per acre).
Think of it like this: if you've got a single family house on a square 1-acre lot, that's a little over 200 feet on each side. Assuming it's not a corner lot and you've got a neighbor across the street, your tax dollars basically need to pay to maintain 100' of street, water and sewer pipes, etc. plus the cost per mile of city vehicles driving past it. (Plus some amount related to the depth of the yard and its effect on the length of other roads on other sides of the block, but let's ignore that for simplicity.)
In comparison, if it were 4 1/4-acre lots instead (with 50' of street frontage each), each family would only be responsible for 25' worth of infrastructure. Or if it were a 10-unit multifamily building on that lot, each family would only need to pay for 10'.
Unfortunately, because tax is based on property value and not street frontage and value doesn't scale linearly like that, what ends up happening is that the city loses money on the large-lot single-family, and those people (who are already generally some of the richest since they can afford large lots) end up getting subsidized by the (poorest) people who take up the least amount of space.
It's both unjust and a perverse incentive to consume more space than you need.