No :)

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Anyone who understands the concentration of CO2 in the air knows that these things are nothing but a PR stunt. You’re not going to pull enough out of the air to have any meaningful contribution; there’s just not a lot there to pull out. For all the harm it’s causing, CO2 makes up a tiny part of air composition, only about 0.04%.

    These things are built for idiots who think the solution is as simple as “just run the air through a filter” and don’t grasp how much air there actually is, and how little there is to pull out.

    • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlBannedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s what the article is about. It also goes into biomass energy land use and the unknown effectiveness of grinding up rocks + laying them on farmland

    • Legianus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      So your answer is “Yes”?

      As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer “yes”, and only 22 % answer “no” with the rest being indecisive.

      • Rooskie91@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence.

        Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

        • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlBannedOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think their point is that this stupid internet meme based off of a random tech writer - akin to Cory Doctorow’s “enshittification” - is not even backed up by its own citation

          Wikipedia is such a shithole…

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

        I think studies that look at the article’s response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely.

        • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlBannedOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

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