No :)

  • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact “no”, right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges’s law.)

      And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet?

      And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says “Yes, it’s fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action,” right?

      I’m not sure why you’re being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’m not sure why your so dismissive of it. It’s a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is.

          • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won’t see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯