We have /c/fuckcars but no /c/fuckplanes. Yet a lot of the same arguments apply. They cause air pollution (roughly double the amount per km traveled), noise pollution and they (airports) take up a lot of space near dense living areas. Sure, some places can practically only be visited by plane, just like some places can practically only be visited by car. But people don’t consider not having your holiday that far away or giving pushback on a busines trip that should have been an online meeting. Besides work-from-home being encouraged, work-from-home-country should be too.

Cars need to be discouraged in favor of busses, trams and trains. Planes nees to be discouraged in favor of high-speed trains, staycations and hopefully new alternatives like modern sailboats or electric planes.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    The information is pointless because it easily could be wrong. And now anybody who wants to know whether it’s wrong or not has to research it themselves … which they could have done from the beginning.

    It just adds a layer of wasteful AI slop that, ultimately, brings absolutely no new information to the table.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Then that’s an ad hominem. There’s always a potential for error so that alone is not per se disqualifying; and despite how much it might anger you, the major LLMs are more accurate than random chance on questions like this. I feel like if you’re going to be bitchy about it (and you seem quite determined to be bitchy about this), you have an obligation to at least do better than the guy who did almost nothing. At least google it or something. Right now you’re just telling us, “I can’t even say that’s wrong, I’m just upset you used an LLM.”