Great! Can you suggest a guest? Perhaps yourself? If you DM me I can send you more information about the podcast.

Love this! I’m developing a podcast, Thrivable Scotland, Thrivable Planet. Transparent collective action is a core aspect I want to cover, but hadn’t thought about it in those terms. Very helpful.

What if we saw our purpose as helping create the conditions for people and the rest of nature to thrive – whatever happens?

Join me as I explore the idea of working for thrivable places and a thrivable planet.

notes.realise.earth

I do like photos taken through train windows!

What IS the annoying type of fireside chat?

What has sometimes worked for me is trying variations of "I want to speak to a human".

Never been, as Leith is a long way from Portobello, and we have the excellent @portybooks.bsky.social. But I'd be equally annoyed if Waterstones came here.

I imagine a petition might get some traction and attention.

Indeed! Good overview of digital sovereignty and what to do here from @parismarx.com

techwontsave.us/episode/300_...

If I wasn’t an enthusiastic user of a Europe based, independent note taking app that only runs on Mac, I’d shift to Linux right away.

agenda.com

It seems like many people are groping, in their own various ways, toward some version of, "we need more meatspace interactions and real-world relationships." Revive unions, revive local politics, revive the social practices of gathering & talking repeatedly.

On the rare occasion I click a link you share from that site I use Reader Mode.

The plan has admirable goals and some fine ideas. Talks about the problems of lack of passive surveillance and community infrastructure isolated by major roads - populated by drivers who predominantly do not reside in the area.

The plan: install some seats and a bit of landscaping.

Score: 1/10

I can’t bring myself to listen. Can anyone else? What on earth are his arguments? He’s my MP and seemed soundish when he spoke at a local event. I should probably write to him.

Rowing forwards into the past?

Yes, alright - but that’s for, not “them”.

Because we don't trust you. We want to see the chain of evidence on which your views are based. (Despite the fact that today much of the report, the quotes and citations will be 'hallucinations')