People in this thread are hitting us with all sorts of whatabout stories with extreme conditions; and meanwhile I’m working in a office where people will come in and turn on the cooling because they just walked up some stairs, and then turn on the heating after they’ve sat down for a couple of minutes. No concept of self regulation. Just any hint of discomfort means the room has to change temperature.
It that context, the pushback in this thread is a bit depressing.
This is a great way to mess with the self appointments lords of the thermostat as they caw their favorite sayings like “Wear a sweater” and “turn the lights out when you leave the room”.
It’s the nuclear age grandpa. I’m cranking my thermo to 23. Take your shirt off if you’re warm.
No pants it is then.
“This meme was made by someone in a warm climate.”
I mean, I’m in Moscow and it’s barely below 0 degC.
But - yes.
-40° and a newborn say otherwise
You’re supposed to put the sweater on the newborn and not just yourself in this scenario
They’re going to need slightly more than a sweater.
Two sweaters?
Haha, but no this is a serious issue, kids died in Texas last winter because parents didn’t realize it could get cold enough to kill them inside their house.
… why is texas?
Because large parts of Texas aren’t used to being cold. They’re hot desert climates and while a 75 degree night after a 110 degree high feels cold, it won’t kill you. So when they got nights at 32 degrees and their electricity was out it was something of a shock.
Make sure you put the sweater on yourself first
-20 ºC winters have entered the chat
Wearing a sweater still makes sense there. To spend less energy.
But in that case it’ll be more a matter of heat isolation. Though when such a low temperature exists on the outside consistently, air humidity drops and it sucks heat less. I think it works this way, but that’s pure intuition or something, my physics knowledge sucks definitely.
I doubt they could pass the Turing test.
Build your house better
Igloo effect
Ah yes let me just unbuild my house like minecraft
Either you’re smart enough to realize that’s accurate or dumb enough to think it’s a point
K, filled my apartment’s living room with ice and snow, doesn’t seem to be helping. Did I miss a step?
Yes, understanding insulation
Why is everyone in this thread Richard Byrd?
Most people I know wear t-shirts at home in winter and heat up the house to compensate, wasting energy. This meme is clearly aimed at them.
If you live in arctic conditions, then you probably already wear more than a shirt, even at home. If not, then feel adressed as well.
And to the many people who are currently raising their babies at home: Scandinavian practices be damned. I understand that it’s not too practical to regularly wrap up your baby so that they can withstand freezing conditions. Fine. Turn up the damn thermostat. You already have a screaming infant at your hands.
Everyone else: stfu.
haven’t seen a shitpost hit a nerve this hard in a while, hahaha!
You can’t put sweaters on pets
You need to have one room You can heat if needed to keep the pet in if it’s going to get cold
Zonal heating what what. My home office is the cat office during the day.
You can’t put sweaters on pets
I know many retirees who disagree.
I mean, they have a built-in sweater. If they got really cold you’d see them cuddle up in a blanket, on a bed, or close to a person. Either way I bet you’d be more risking your pipes freezing than harming your pets.
To a point, yeah. But when it’s -40 outside, heating to 18 or 21 doesn’t make much of a difference energy wise.
im the ranging person during the summer with AC. my apartment gets super fucking hot during the summer and i need AC blasting 24/7
If you have south or west facing windows:
Metallized privacy films have made a big difference in my home. For heat protection, they should be the weather resistant kind and applied to the outside of the window. (They should be removable without leaving any residue)
If you want to try this method out first: Stick a few space blankets in front of the windows. Looks like shit, but it’s a cheap way to test whether this method might work for you.
I’ve lived in my current place for over 10 years, and so don’t actually know if the heater works.
Then again, I live in Texas (and was away from home for the big freezes we had in 2021 and 2023), so it’s rarely an issue.
But air conditioning is a different story. I can only trove so much clothing, and without air conditioning my little trailer home gets to like 120 degrees in the summer.
A touque as well. You lose most of your heat through your head. It’s easy enough to take off and put in your pocket if you get too warm, then put back on if you feel like you’re getting cold.
Sadly not accurate, except about touques being sexy and convenient
If it helps, here is an article calling ur mom and the dude from Letterkenny dumb: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/body-heat-loss
Simpler to just model humans as nearly black bodies with known surface area and some heat lost through gas exchange.
Well, maybe my mom just told me that to make sure I wore a touque. ;)
I’m bald now, so it made sense.
I’ve never sweat through my eyes before.
yeah unless you’re drying off the thermostat should never be above like 58 for heating. Layers fix everything else
It’s gonna get down to -30°C this week, I’ll turn the heat off and just throw on the good ol’ toque and a sweater and report back, assuming I still have fingers.
I think this meme is mocking the people that turn their house up to 72°F instead of just leaving it at 60°F and wearing a hoodie. The difference in price is quite extreme.
THAT’S VERY COLD
Damn. It’s only 4 degrees for me, but my room still gets cold if I don’t have the heater on max because some moron decided that an entire fucking wall in my room has to be window.
Same here.
But there is middle-ground here. My wife came from a very temperate country. She wants the thermostat set at like, 26.
I’d be happy to have it at 17 and wear sleeves indoors. 9 degrees thermostat difference makes a hell of a dent in the utility bill.
Agreed. Funnily I’m from a more temperature country and she’s from where I’m at now, but she’s the one that is always cold and wants to keep it at ~22. I ain’t gonna argue considering she pays the electricity bill, though.
Team 23.5 represent! My toesies are cold but the rest of me is alright!
26?! Hell, I can’t even sleep if it’s above like 20C in my room. My bedroom right now is 10C (vents blocked to keep it extra cold) and that’s about the perfect sleeping temp. I’d go that cold in the rest of the house too but my pet snake probably wouldn’t appreciate it.
snake tax snake tax snake tax!!
I don’t seem to have any actually good pictures of them in my phone atm and they’re in the middle of a shed right now. So the best I’ve got is a pic from the time they decided slither into my couch frame and made me partially dismantle my couch to get them out. They’re lucky that they’re cute.
aaah handsome baby! Using the single communal braincell to get into trouble is a great honor in their culture, I’ve heard.
Don’t you get nightmares, sleeping in the cold like that?
Nope I sleep like a baby. If it’s too hot them my dreams might get weird though.
I grew up in cold but have spent almost two decades in humid subtropical. If it’s 20ish outside, I usually won’t turn on the heat, but 23 if it gets any colder (though that’s in part because old japanese house loses heat like crazy. 21 is good for me)
19C during the day, 14C at night, 22C in the office because sitting still and concentrating is no way to keep warm.
I can’t wait until it’s warm enough to just keep windows open 24/7 again.
I keep my place at 15.5c in winter because it’s super drafty. (I’m getting the siding redone soon, I really hope that helps, but ultimately we have the same climate as Siberia so there’s only so much to be done) even at 15.5, it’s still about $200 USD/mth to heat, but at 18c it more than doubles in cost.
I’m like your wife; made for warmer climates. My ideal temp is around 30c, and I’m cold at 23, but I have heated mattress pads on my bed and couch (much much much cheaper to run than furnace) so it’s not too bad overall. They are a bit pricy up front, but definitely worth the spend.
Perhaps that sort of thing would be a good compromise for you two; a couple heated chair covers or couch cover or something to bring her temp up while keeping the overall temp lower.
Don’t be lazy. You can type with your toes.
Who said I’d still have toes?
Alright, well, you should at least have a functional nub or two
Guys if you keep heating your houses to 15°C or more you’re the cause for climate change and the corporations can’t blow petawatts on their AI data centers c’mon don’t be so selfish
My flat grows mold if I leave it under 18C for too long and my landlord doesn’t care 🥴
Mmmm, mold.
I’m right with you on that though. Small basement apartment with a concrete floor that was built in the 1930s. Yep. Mold.
Yeah how else will ChatGPT tell you how to distribute (a^2 +b2)(c2+d^2)? /s
I’m sorry, me heaters are set to 16°C 😢
In my defence they don’t go any lower than that for some reasonSome reason being that if you don’t maintain a certain temperature in your house you’ll get mildew problems.
That’s basically the minimum requirement to avoid structural decay. You should not be letting your place get any colder than that.
True, but also let’s not just let ourself dash toward suicide. Society is not meant to sustain nudism in the middle of winter 24/7.
Just wear a sweater bro
come to florida! hehe
Both uses are a problem, one is just more unnecessary than the other.
Being comfortable is unnecessary. If you’re not suffering as much as this guy, you’re the problem with society.
Is there a limit to comfort?
For me it’s about two hands. That’s where I max out.
People can get injured if it’s too cold. They can lose sleep, which is a problem over time. With our level of technology, life doesn’t ever need to hurt.
Exactly. The usual context of “comfort” contains an unsaid word: “sufficient”.
Yep. With the understanding that sufficient is different for everyone.
Not that different
> *buys new iPhone*
> *uses Google as primary search engine*
> *doesn’t use adblocker*
> *pays for youtube*
> *pays for spotify*
> *pays for netflix*
> *buys brand clothes*
> *doesn’t give a shit about monopolies, worker conditions, product origins, nothing*
> Guys, it’s the corporation’s fault for making all these products for me to buy!
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
I find that quite the platitude.
When is consumption ever “ethical”? Is hunting animals to survive ethical? Is killing plants to survive ethical? Is modification of the environment for survival ethical? Life itself is destructive because in order to survive, something else must die. In order to make life more enjoyable, even more must die and suffer. This is not limited to capitalism but any form of survival.
If we were 4 billion people on the planet without global trade, markets, businesses, advanced technology, and so on, we would still kill everything around us, go to war, enslave, rape, subjugate, and consume.
that phrase doesn’t really attempt to tackle the general idea of consumption, just the one under capitalism.
It’s a response to the phenomenon where seemingly no matter what you buy, no matter where you buy it, somewhere along the supply chain someone got hurt or got taken advantage of, and the environment was most likely hurt as well.
Ethical people (ignoring the definition of what that means as i’m not really feeling like writing an essay) usually want to avoid any products that cause someone or something to be harmed during production. But under capitalism that’d mean never buying technology again and having to quit society as having a smartphone is mandatory nowadays, though you’d probably starve first if your best friend isn’t a 100% eco friendly farmer (and even then that farmer probably uses a combine which is made out of quite a few parts, production of at least one or two definitely involved some form of abuse)
So the slogan “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” highlights the fact it’s not an individual’s fault, and the invidivual is not to blame, when they buy something that unknowingly (or knowingly but out of necessity) brought harm to the people or the environment involved in making the thing.
In the olden days you could feasibly survive by being a farmer who kills maybe a couple of his stock a year for meat. You knew exactly where your patatos came from (your field), you knew exactly where your clothes came from (your best friend is the town seamstress), you knew exactly where you furniture is from (the lumberjack who gets wood for the carpenter is your brother).
But then things got more complicated, and capitalism encourages cutting ethical corners in favour of profit
It’s a response to the phenomenon where seemingly no matter what you buy, no matter where you buy it, somewhere along the supply chain someone got hurt or got taken advantage of, and the environment was most likely hurt as well.
I call this the Doug Fawcett Principle
good name for it indeed! The Good Place is a fantastic show
that phrase doesn’t really attempt to tackle the general idea of consumption, just the one under capitalism.
Yes, exactly why I said it’s a platitude. It’s thoughtless and trite. I’m saying: consumption is not ethical, no matter which system. There is no ethical consumption.
So the slogan “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” highlights the fact it’s not an individual’s fault, and the invidivual is not to blame, when they buy something that unknowingly (or knowingly but out of necessity) brought harm to the people or the environment involved in making the thing.
That’s a cop out. It paints consumers as mere puppets or robots who are unable to make choices or decisions that could lead to a reduction of suffering.
In the olden days you could feasibly survive by being a farmer […]
The good ol’ days, how many times have I heard that one. In the good ol’ days there was often imperial rule. In the good ol’ days, slave trade was the norm. In the good older days, your little town or village could be overrun by wandering horde of Mongols or even just the next village over that had a different tribe. In the good ol’ days, if you were disabled you were fucked, if you had a different skin color you were fucked, if you were a woman you were figuratively and literally fucked, if you got sick any “incurable disease” you were not fucked, you were dead, if you couldn’t work anymore your offspring had to tend to you and if those didn’t exist or weren’t willing to you were fucked, and so on.
It’s nice to romanticise “simpler” days after watching “Gone With Wind”, but life back then was hard af. It was backbreaking. People died at much higher rates than now with little to show for it. People still live absolutely miserable lives, but the rate thereof is much lower in the countries exploiting others.
But then things got more complicated, and capitalism encourages cutting ethical corners in favour of profit
Capitalism doesn’t encourage anything. It’s one of the natural products of human greed. Any other system created by humans is flawed and infected the human disease, doomed to create suffering and torment. The only question is how much. Whether capitalism generates more than other systems is debatable, but to claim that there is “ethical consumption” in any other living system is wishful thinking. It doesn’t exist.
Yes, exactly why I said it’s a platitude. It’s thoughtless and trite. I’m saying: consumption is not ethical, no matter which system. There is no ethical consumption.
That’s a false dichotomy…even if we agreed with your definition of all consumption being unethical, it wouldn’t mean that there aren’t different levels of unethical practices used to produce those consumables.
All consumption being unethical does not mean that all forms of production are equally unethical. If that’s the case you wouldn’t really have a problem with sending the kids back to the mines.
It paints consumers as mere puppets or robots who are unable to make choices or decisions that could lead to a reduction of suffering.
Can you point to a time in history where a general boycott of a dangerous or harmful product was successful without the help of government intervention?
Any other system created by humans is flawed and infected the human disease, doomed to create suffering and torment.
And apparently that doesn’t happen under capitalism? Then what exactly are you bitching about plastic for?
“ethical consumption” in any other living system is wishful thinking. It doesn’t exist.
Again, your argument is based on a forced false dichotomy.
Not to mention that it seems like you are really just a libertarian angry at consumers for participating in the “free market”.
You can’t simultaneously believe that the free market is the best way to regulate the economy, but upset at the people for their consumption habits in a free market.
the other person’s reply is good so i won’t repeat their points,
but i also wanted to address the “romanticisation” of the “ol’ days”. Because i did not intend to do that, what i was trying to portray was that it was simpler in the context of the supply chain of your food and belongings. You knew exactly where all your things came from, and the process of creation and aquisition of goods was mostly contained within your village and the village nearby, with the occasional traveller looking to trade
So just die I guess?
That’s a pretty ridiculous take.
No, Maggot. Think before you consume.
Perhaps to you the saying is a platitude, but that seems subjective. To someone who hasn’t considered the impacts of their consumption habits, or the ways that different economic systems can serve to reward different patterns of human behavior, it can be a thought provoking statement.
There is no ethical consumption.
If you view ethics as a binary, then sure. If you view ethics as a complex and nuanced spectrum, well, not so much.
Capitalism doesn’t encourage anything.
What a reductionist take, especially considering the paragraph you’d written just above it.
Perhaps to you the saying is a platitude, but that seems subjective
Wow, everything is relative. Do you have any other wise things to say? It’s in the eye of the beholder maybe? There is no truth? There are no absolutes? Want to whip out some tautologies or falsely attribute some quotes to Einstein?
If you view ethics as a binary, then sure. If you view ethics as a complex and nuanced spectrum, well, not so much.
Again with the “everything is relative”. So actually, we’re living in paradise right now, because relative to 5B years ago, earth would be inhospitable. But we are also living in hell because things could be so much better.
Everything is nuanced. Of course it is. Which is why the phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is false. You’re just confirming it yourself with your “everything is relative” and “to the esteemed members of the ivory tower with completely formed and immensely folded brains, ethics is an intricate and nuanced spectrum”.
What a reductionist take, especially considering the paragraph you’d written just above it.
Yes, thank you for confirming that you understood nothing of what I wrote.
I like how you put paying as the bad thing instead of just using
Using monopolist services and good is bad, but sometimes forced. Paying is most often voluntary and worse as it gives them even more power than just use.
