SkepticalButOpenMinded @ SkepticalButOpenMinded @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

506

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think you misunderstand me. I am not "acting like" anything is certain. I am explicitly endorsing uncertainty. One of the things I fucking hate about the internet is all the insane confidence, and groupthink around that confidence. If it later turns out he loses, a bunch of people will come out and say, "I always thought that. I don't think anyone thought he would win from jail." and I'll want to scratch out my eyes.

Some definitely will never abandon him. He has a high floor. But he needs support from more than his rabid base to dominate the primaries like he has. Will moderate suburban Republicans also support him from jail? If you're confident about predicting that, the prediction is based on no historical data because it's unprecedented.

I will never vote for her, but the polling agrees with you. She is the strongest in a match up against Biden.

edit: The polls have been pretty consistent that Haley is strongest against Biden. Here is one example. If that still makes you want to push the downvote button, then you have no right to accuse rightwingers of mindless tribalism.

I think a lot of people lack imagination about what can happen between now and the primaries/general. Trump could be found guilty for numerous crimes. He could go to jail. He could lose his money and properties in that civil trial. He is also an old man that could get dementia, be diagnosed with cancer, or suddenly die of natural causes. If he is suddenly out of the running, being second is very valuable.

“But for most of those events, people will support him anyways!” Maybe. This is all unprecedented. I don’t know where people get their level of certainty from.

It’s greed plus tacit coordination. If all the companies in an industry raise prices at the same time, and almost none of them defect by unilaterally lowering prices, then they can all increase prices together. One theory is that markets are too concentrated now so tacit coordination during inflationary periods are easier.

I don’t know if you’re willfully misreading me. I am saying that EV tires only wear slower when they do because they have to be specifically designed to withstand the extra friction. But EVs wear equivalent tires faster than non-EVs because EVs are heavier. If you don’t understand this, I’m not sure how to explain it to you.

Imagine someone saying “Chairs for obese people last longer than those for normal weight people.” That may be, but only because they are designed that way. You can’t change the laws of physics. EVs are heavier. As the many experts across the actual journalistic sources I cited say, that means more friction and more wear.

Then you’re responding to the wrong comment. The comment you’re responding to is one where I say that tire pollution is worse than brake pollution. In the thread where I say that tire pollution can be worse in some ways than tailpipe emissions, I specify that EVs are still better than ICEs for the climate.

So you’re responding to a comment where I didn’t say what you claim I said, while accusing me of holding a position I don’t hold.

There are other conceivable sorts of disagreements that might cause a shut down, some much more reasonable. I think it’s fair to call this particular shutdown out for being the result of extremist elements in the Republican Party making absurd demands.

It’s so extreme that even most Republicans outside of the freedom caucus don’t seem to want a shutdown, to the point where the last speaker sacrificed his career to try to avoid one.

I believe that’s again the opposite of what that person is saying.

it will be reduced to just heavier weight

What does this mean? What is the “it”? What does “compensate” mean? Equivalent EVs are heavier. At the same speeds, tires will wear faster and accidents will kill more people.

I provided sources multiple times. Jesus, does anyone read on this thing?

What is the climate denialist outfit you’re referencing? Each article cites multiple experts and different sources making multiple different claims. None of them rely on a “single study” and they are all from high quality sources, so your claim is ridiculous on its face.

You’ve completely misunderstood. EV tires are designed to wear slower because EVs eat through tires faster. If you put more expensive wear resistant tires on a lighter conventional car, it would obviously wear even more slowly.

Your link is not journalism. It doesn’t even cite its sources. It’s literally a blog entry by a tire company encouraging you to buy tires. The multiple experts cited in the actual news articles I posted say increased tire wear from EVs is a huge environmental problem.

I have already responded to multiple people who asked for sources, which you apparently didn't bother to check. One source I cite mentions a 20-50% increase in tire wear. A simple internet search will bring up literally dozens of articles.

It's always amazing how the laziest and nastiest people on the internet, like yourself, are always the most ignorant. You don't need to start shit to support your point.

That might be so in Europe. I am not so optimistic about the US, where car sizes keep increasing. We seem to want to “consume” the extra efficiencies with more powerful engines and bigger range.

Yes, much heavier. It wouldn't be such a big problem if car sizes weren't exploding, and if people didn't demand such absurdly high battery ranges "just in case", even though their daily commute is not 300 miles. Consumers also seem to want unnecessary power instead of efficiency, negating some of the benefits of the transition.

I'm not sure what you were expecting. It is not unreasonable to ask for actual reasons to support your ideas, especially hot takes like "petrol will always be superior".

Yes, French sea salt especially for desserts! Put that sucker on some decadent butter cookies.

That's not an argument, that's a declaration.

You're right, I wrote that confusingly. I mean to say that the research I linked to is just about air pollution from tires. There are also non-air pollution consequences, as microplastics leak into our food supply, drinking water, our environments, our oceans, etc. This is no small matter.

Everyone who cares about the environment is in favor of EVs over ICEs, but some bad effects will actually increase with EV use. We need to transition every remaining car to EV, but we also need to transition society away from cars.

I was talking about tire dust being worse than brake dust. Was that a typo?

Literally no one is arguing that EVs aren't better for the climate than ICEs. But a lot of the climate harm of cars is not just tailpipe emissions, but bad land use. Pavement, parking lots, urban sprawl, are major contributors to climate change. I don't understand this idea that if we push to move away from cars, it will encourage ICE use. It's an inane argument.

edit: I also haven't seen studies of how much air particulate matter from tires contributes to the greenhouse effect. I don't doubt it's still better than ICEs, but it could still be significant.