Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TT
Tomboys_are_Cute [he/him, comrade/them] @ Tomboys_are_Cute @hexbear.net
Posts
1
Comments
43
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • I don't get why you're so dismissive of public transit being possible. Is it something with the ideological make up of the USA? I could give that until Miami is under water in about a decade. If its for physical limitations though then I couldn't give that, once again the USSR was primarily mass transit. If they could do it back then the USA could do it now.

  • I don't think you understand the forces at play here. Gasoline burns at around 1000°c while lithium burns at over 2000°c. There is also the firefighting efforts about it (which is my job) which really suck. For a normal car or diesel fire with a water source we can fight the fire with foam, no problem. The NFPA doesn't even require us to carry Class D (metal fires) fire extinguishers on our trucks. We do have them on our trucks but they are designed for like, small appliances mostly, they don't have enough powder to actually manage a Tesla power system. We have to pull out whoever is inside then basically wait for the dump truck (literally a dump truck full of sand) to show up so we can glass most of the car in order to deny oxygen. Electric cars are a fucking grift, transport should be powered with overhead wires, maybe third rails.

    Edit: also if you aren't car pooling why do you own a car? Why enter the "fuck cars" fray if you aren't anti-car?

  • Your question is loaded with too many assumptions. You assume international laws as they stand are good as they stand, you assume torture works to obtain information, but more than that you assume these forces exist in a vacuum. By your logic and with your assumptions obviously evil is more powerful but you've papered over so much that the answer to your question is meaningless.

    There is also the materialist part of your problem which is it assumes both sides have access to the same resources (and that they work the way you think they do). How many more Good people are there than Evil? Do the Evil people have the knowledge and skills to produce the weapons to facilitate the tactics you lay out or would they rely on Good people to produce them? If they do then what happens if the Good people object to making the weapons that facilitate their winning tactics? How can the Evil people conscript the Good people into performing their duty without those weapons?

    Finally it assumes states act in unified ways under central control, and that everyone in those states are state actors and act under command of the state. There is no country in the history of the world where that has ever been true, not only does it go against the concept of free will (which your name suggests you don't believe in) it also assumes that either states are conscious entities of themselves or there are conscious people controlling these states and every single person in them or acting on their behalf.

  • If this is a surprise to anyone I would insult their critical thinking. How could that have gone any other way? Obviously that land was going to be more valuable as single family detached homes in a wildly speculative real estate environment and of course developers would know that. Of course these developers would have influence too, they were Ford's base in the 905!