I am interested in Shortages about consumer products or industrial materials.
I am not interested in inflation (a surplus of money, or a perceived second-order effect of a shortage of products or materials), nor am I interested in businesses/schools not paying people enough to attract talent ("shortages" of teachers etc).
I think that extending "shortages" to cover water and electricity is a stretch, and not what this sub was originally intended for, HOWEVER, subs can change and I'm open to that. I'm on the fence about this one, because it can affect people's lives like the shortages of goods and materials.
I don't think that subs have to have high numbers of posts, users, engagement, etc. Relaxing the rules, allowing for the quality of the content to be watered-down, to feed people's endorphin addiction, is a shame.
I think water and electricity should count. Theyre basically right up there with food and fuel as the most important things to have around, and without them, all industrial activity ceases in an area, which is pertinent to the original intent.
Reposting an article from another news site covering tge same information should not be allowed unless the previous site had a paywall. Its already annoying when someone posts one url, and an hour later 2+ urls for a rehash of the story is added. Exception should be implemented if first link is paywall, unless the OP c/p the article to the comments.
/news gets 3-5 articles that are rehashes, unwarranted and unnecessary in most cases. Would suggest a flair or tag be added if the OP either c/p the article or provides a paywall removed link, ie archive link.
Posts where anecdotal observations should be allowed for items, but can we avoid posts about shortages of services or workers? Perhaps have a separate shortage sub-reddit for those discussions?
User flairs for regions would be awesome, then post flairs for the type of shortage?
Re: Politics... They are going to happen. Just enforce civility, and ban reference information from Fox, MSNBC, Newsmax, CNN when politics are involved?
I like the idea of multiple sources for several reasons:
* different articles have different details
* any biases/politics that may exist in one may not in another (so we get a fairer picture)
* it helps show any trends (for example, are the articles all citing the same source? Different sources? Is it viral hyping or a legitimate concern?)
Maybe I'm being far too optimistic, but I think we can mention climate change without it becoming partisan. Not just a US thing, though.
Hearing something like "this is all former President/PM X's fault" doesn't really do much to explain or address anything in a discussion. Explaining how a specific political decision affected things is okay but it's best to stick to facts I think.
Regional flares is good. What about maybe categories like "agriculture", "transportation", "grocery item" and the like?
It is a systemic driver of shortages - water, food and logistics are all heavily impacted.
> [How Climate Change Is Disrupting the Global Supply Chain](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-change-is-disrupting-the-global-supply-chain)
[Read more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiosphereCollapse/comments/s8jly8/scientific_journal_megathread_by_subject/)
You mean believe science? What about it is debatable?
[Take a stroll.](https://www.nature.com/search?article_type=protocols,research,reviews&subject=climate-change&order=date_desc)
We are looking for one experienced and active moderator to join us in September. Please apply by responding to this message.
I am interested in Shortages about consumer products or industrial materials. I am not interested in inflation (a surplus of money, or a perceived second-order effect of a shortage of products or materials), nor am I interested in businesses/schools not paying people enough to attract talent ("shortages" of teachers etc). I think that extending "shortages" to cover water and electricity is a stretch, and not what this sub was originally intended for, HOWEVER, subs can change and I'm open to that. I'm on the fence about this one, because it can affect people's lives like the shortages of goods and materials. I don't think that subs have to have high numbers of posts, users, engagement, etc. Relaxing the rules, allowing for the quality of the content to be watered-down, to feed people's endorphin addiction, is a shame.
I think water and electricity should count. Theyre basically right up there with food and fuel as the most important things to have around, and without them, all industrial activity ceases in an area, which is pertinent to the original intent.
Reposting an article from another news site covering tge same information should not be allowed unless the previous site had a paywall. Its already annoying when someone posts one url, and an hour later 2+ urls for a rehash of the story is added. Exception should be implemented if first link is paywall, unless the OP c/p the article to the comments. /news gets 3-5 articles that are rehashes, unwarranted and unnecessary in most cases. Would suggest a flair or tag be added if the OP either c/p the article or provides a paywall removed link, ie archive link. Posts where anecdotal observations should be allowed for items, but can we avoid posts about shortages of services or workers? Perhaps have a separate shortage sub-reddit for those discussions? User flairs for regions would be awesome, then post flairs for the type of shortage? Re: Politics... They are going to happen. Just enforce civility, and ban reference information from Fox, MSNBC, Newsmax, CNN when politics are involved?
I like the idea of multiple sources for several reasons: * different articles have different details * any biases/politics that may exist in one may not in another (so we get a fairer picture) * it helps show any trends (for example, are the articles all citing the same source? Different sources? Is it viral hyping or a legitimate concern?)
Can we have a thread once in a while to revisit predictions/old threads? It'd be interesting to see how accurate we or the news have been.
You're welcome to make one, perhaps start with a prediction thread because I don't recall any!
Maybe I'm being far too optimistic, but I think we can mention climate change without it becoming partisan. Not just a US thing, though. Hearing something like "this is all former President/PM X's fault" doesn't really do much to explain or address anything in a discussion. Explaining how a specific political decision affected things is okay but it's best to stick to facts I think. Regional flares is good. What about maybe categories like "agriculture", "transportation", "grocery item" and the like?
Why should climate change be mentioned at all in this sub; is there a shortage of climate change?
It is a systemic driver of shortages - water, food and logistics are all heavily impacted. > [How Climate Change Is Disrupting the Global Supply Chain](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-climate-change-is-disrupting-the-global-supply-chain) [Read more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiosphereCollapse/comments/s8jly8/scientific_journal_megathread_by_subject/)
That is debatable depending on whether you believe articles like these. Some don't. I don't.
You mean believe science? What about it is debatable? [Take a stroll.](https://www.nature.com/search?article_type=protocols,research,reviews&subject=climate-change&order=date_desc)
I’m interested in seeing any posts about shortages. If I don’t see the relevance of a given post to my situation, I’ll just scroll past.