TLDR: Article seems shady. Article claims she doesnt support solar at all, one of the linked references ironically shows her supporting solar, instantly debunking articles own claims…

This article needs more scrutiny than the bare minimum i could provide. Its well written in the way it presents its logic, ill give it that. ——- After giving it a thorough read, theres something off about this article.

It rightfully makes an attempt to make a sketical case about fasulo and shows that she was a Q follower, but that shouldnt make anyone close the book and view her as guilty.

The article it doesnt seem to use anything thats current which supports the writers claim that shes against solar.

In fact the writer claims that Fasulo does not support solar at all but the very same reference piece to her website shows Fasulo in support of “smart solar” as she describes putting solar on buildings, freeways, parking lots, anything that seems to already be in place and to spare farmland or forests.

Last edit: never mind i thoroughly read the article and it falsely makes claims that she did not make such as her not supporting solar when she does in-fact support it.

Sure be skeptical of her past but dont let that blind you in to imagining more than it is. Thats where this article is good at, leaving important details for imagination. ——- Edit: finally got to reading it, saw that she was a Q follower thats enough to convince me thats shes not to be trusted. Thats quite disappointing

——

Ill edit and leave my original point since its still a valid reason for someone genuine to oppose solar farms.

Solar panels belong in cities wheres there’s plenty of rooftops. So its valid to be against solar FARMS

That isnt always the case. A single large machine will consume a lot of resources and will produce a large amount of waste which is often the reason why companies dont want to deal with it responsibly. Theres less thought into the infrastructure and is geared more towards profit which explains my why companies will always irresponsibly pollute with their byproducts. Think landfills, no matter how much money they throw to pass on the problems to another company, they will all cut corners. This has a far larger impact on the ecological system than a smaller machine.

On the other hand, a smaller self hosted machine allows for the person/local group to properly plan out the infrastructure to not only efficiently use resources but to also effectively process/handle byproducts.

Thoughts on New community rule:

The expulsion of non english communities would be antithetical to the theme of the instance and would make the instance even more diluted with western media/culture, thus diversity of media/ideas/culture would be reduced.

It would be a huge disservice to many here who came to contribute for everyone to enjoy only for it to be gatekept by an english only restriction. Not to mention the potential zenophobic undertones that may be perceived as acceptable to such people.

Sure, non english speakers may not get to read your english post immediately but someone else in their region who learned english may see your post and will prompt them to share in their own language.

Perhaps it may be better to first discuss is great detail what problems this rule is trying to prevent and see if there are any feasible solutions before resorting to the worst case.

If that is true then that is much better than revolt because that kind of name will make the majority of people roll their eyes and pass it up.

So while it hard to get your friends to join a different platform imagine how much harder it would be to get them to join “revolt”. Its super edgy

Mind sharing any linux phones candidates you are considering?