Sanyanov @ Sanyanov @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

439

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sure

Lemmy as a project is free from ideology, but the spirit of main instances is like this. That's what I'm saying.

I found it both weird (sometimes in a bad way) and fascinating.

From all life taught me, more online freedom normally gives rise to far-right extremism, and this place is surprisingly...left?

But yes, it might be skewed. As a left (and not Democrat kind of left, more like communist kind of left) I can't not enjoy it, but I understand some people can be left out and that's not nice to them.

The general ethos really is left-wing here.

Honestly even on political topics here you are much more likely to face a civil debate. There are exceptions, but chances are chances.

Article says that the program is estimated to cost Iowa $2,2 million, the rest covered on a federal level.

They can't find 2,2 million.

We should certainly establish the same definition of "green", as it is so wide it encompasses both of our positions.

I claim that most people expect EVs to be the solution for eco-friendly transportation that is sustainable and future-proof. And this is not true. That's what I meant.

It's important to clear out why it is unrealistic in order to address it. I see two reasons: 1.Governments not doing enough to promote and build effective public transit 2.People not willing to lose comfort of driving their own car - something that insulates them from other people and allows to move anywhere anytime.

And both are solvable through policy changes. First, we desperately need to invest in public transit. We can get money by taxing car sales more, which will shift both sides of the equation by making cars less affordable, while at the same time freeing up money for public transit development (of course, less sales of cars should be factored in). We need more routes, more comfortable conditions for passengers, more relatively low-scale options to drive passengers to less popular destinations. We also need to subsidize taxi and car rentals for cases when someone actually needs a car.

But those are the solutions that might get negative reaction of the public at first, and this tension is to me the most problematic (of course after lobbying made by automakers). Populist leaders will never go for that step, or they risk losing their popularity and influence.

I also assume that if we get some exotic state of matter through this process and learn to extract energy at least 100x more effectively, this could become practucal for some applications

Is it practical beyond confirming Einstein's equation works both ways, with all of the theoretical implications?

Considering you need a ton of energy to produce even a milligram of matter (8,99*10^10 J, or 24,7 MWh, assuming 100% conversion).

The point is that the rise of electic cars slows down the kinds of fundamental shifts and, most importantly, policy changes we need in order to actually get sustainable.

While it can be seen as an improvement, at the end of the day we end up not taking measures we absolutely should. Everyone is just advertising EV's as a solution, which they are not. At best, it's a transient stage before people can finally accept they cannot drive a car in an environmentally friendly way, ever.

You've just knocked down strawman yourself.

The point made by commenter is not that cars are the only source of climate change, but that EV industry is in itself heavily polluting and unsustainable. While it is true that it is a little less heavy on the environment than an ICE car (assuming you drive it regularly, because building an EV is less environmentally friendly, actually), it is still an incredibly environmentally unfriendly solution.

Manufacturing is super polluting and expends very limited resources in huge quantities. Energy sources are normally NOT green, and even if they are, they are not harmless, too. Tyres are still a giant problem. Parking lots require a lot of urban spaces, which leads to stretching cities and exacerbating problems with all transportation, as well as leading to deforestation on the outskirts and ramped up asphalt production. More roads are required, meaning again, more intervention in natural ecosystems, extreme amounts of resources and pollution.

There is simply no way you can drive a 2-ton car to move ~70kg human around with it making any ecological sense, while many people pretend that EV's are here to save us. No, sorry, they are not; you'll have to change your habits if you want to keep Earth habitable. Period.

This debate is clearly one of different goalposts.

Electric car fans will fairly notice that electric cars are less bad than traditional ICE cars, and therefore the technology is good

Anti-car folks will also rightfully point out that there's too much focus on EVs at the time when we should move away from cars altogether, and that electric car future is also very unsustainable, just a little bit less, while giving the false impression of something "green"

Anything positive coming from anywhere is likely to be at least strongly exaggerated.

There is a demand, and there is a supply. Decentralization trends lead more and more people to self-host, and you can't get around it any other way.

But also self-hosted (the central server, i.e. "lighthouse") and open-source

Sure, and here we can agree.

Just saying that Talibani Islam is as far from actual Islam as Greenland from Australia.

Not agreeing on comparing the evils, but there is a true point in that such stories are hard to verify. We should remember that regardless of our stances in the conflict.

I see, thank you for clarification!

Why would someone edit the actual code (not configs) from the terminal? That by itself sounds like a masochistic endeavor. But I might be missing something.

Sadly, not really - didn't go deep into various options.

But maybe someone else can help?

C'mon, the picture is clearly ironic

Don't be so serious about it

Not the commenter, but I assume they talk about the nature of Abrahamic religions.

Technically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are just three updates of the same religion. First came Torah, then it got transformed into the Old Testament and completed with the New one to get the Bible, and then Bible itself got completed to get Quran.

With that came one abrahamic God - referred to as Yahweh in Judaism, Trinity in Christianity (note: Islam goes back and denies Trinity and godly nature of Jesus, calling him a prophet, not element of God, and rolling back on Holy Spirit, too, reinstating Father God as the only source of godly power), and Allah in Islam.

Thereby cancelling Allah means also cancelling Trinity and Yahweh, as they're actually one and the same.