aelwero @ aelwero @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

322

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean... I look at this chart, and I see that a single transatlantic flight has more impact than completely eliminating the use of your car?

I'm with you, but not for any semblance of the same reason :) I'm with you because im a hostler, a commercial driver that just moves cargo around a local yard. We send roughly 400 tons of bulk paper down the road and rails every 12 hour shift. Most of that is used to manufacture goods like cups, straws, and takeout boxes, within roughly 800 miles of here, but the majority of what goes on railcars is bound for Japan... it's literally going to be transported to the other side of the globe. Japan wants incredibly specific quality paper, and they get it from here. That's a huge amount of tonnage going across the Pacific, and going by this chart might be roughly equivalent to every single car driven in an entire less populous state. Just the shit I move around the yard here... And then basically everything bought in the US is made in China... all that stuff goes across the Pacific.

A long haul truck gets 6mpg, and runs 100k miles a year... every truck, every year... A whole ass lifetime worth of fuel for an average commuter in a "gas guzzling" SUV, in a year. One single truck. Every few days one of these trucks comes to your Walmart, your Home Depot, your Costco.

This chart is peanuts compared to JUST "economy of scale"... Not corporations or manufacturing, just the simple economics of shipping the spork you got at Taco Bell across the Pacific and driving it from the spork warehouse to 2,000 different taco bell joints...

Your personal carbon footprint is a fucking joke. Not in the sense that you shouldn't care, but in the sense that what we do individually, despite being incredibly laudable at its own scale, is such a tiny tiny impact at the scale of economy...

I feel you. Not the way you mean it, but I really do feel you :)

It's a pain in the .

              you              a                            opportunity there.
  

Blade runner (the OG one), kangaroo jack (and a very similar trailer I don't remember with talking dogs?), Toys (maybe not exactly misleading per se, just chaotic as shit? Lots of hype but you had no clue what you were about to watch?), the village...

Definitely more, but most of it goes back far enough that I don't really remember enough specifics to place the shit.

Ya know... that's not a bad point actually :)

Ill ponder that one. Definitely going to alter my perspective on Ukraine a little, but I'm not entirely sure how just off the cuff.

Yes... but I'm probably not going to last long, as there's already a pretty huge bias here...

I have not received a wonderful welcome here with my lack of political affiliation, and your comment speaks directly to it.

I'm much less inclined to forums with a Republican bias though, so I'm here, and hopeful. If you want the wishy washy motherfuckers that flip flop their votes and basically decide elections these days to hear your side and not theirs, maybe you could be slightly less intolerant...

I don't believe this is going to be the case currently... the trend towards conservative was a fiscal phenomenon, as young kids who didn't have a lot of money and wanted a welfare state grew up and became financially independent, they wanted to keep what they were working to get. This would cause a self centric migration from trending democrat to trending republican.

That isn't how the partisan tribes currently work... They've become more of a "morality" enterprise, on both sides.

The choice is now if you think it's appropriate to ban huck finn and Tom Sawyer for the n word, or ban homosexual references. It's a question of do we spend taxes on blacks and the poor, or do we spend it on cluster bombs for Ukraine.

I don't think people will evolve from one side to the other the way boomers did. I think they're evolving farther from center, on both sides.

I don't like book bans period. I don't like the budget growing exponentially period. I don't like that 99% of the population increasingly wants the other half to be completely discounted... I'm essentially evolving towards not liking anybody at all.

I don't think "liberals" are going to become more "conservative" as they age, because that scale is divorced from party politics. Liberal is no longer a democrat trait, and conservative isn't purely republican. Both have adopted the entire con/lib scale in their own way. Democrats have conservative values, republicans have liberal values (the latter to a far greater degree, but I don't think it matters tbh). Just depends on what issue you're talking about.

The flag isn't going to be taken away by racists... it's going to be taken away by the 50% who insist that anyone who isn't like they are is a racist Nazi coup supporting trump voting redneck asshole... Rednecks are flying the US flag, so liberty must be racist. That's what's gonna take the flag away.

I can't say one single fucking word about how the trials related to trump are a complete out of control purely political witchhunt, without it being assumed that I'm racist, that I love trump, that I drive a diesel and love cops... that I have all the traits that the Democrats attribute to a republican... It's either you agree 100% with one, or you are 100% the other... I'm neither. Never have been. I voted for Ross fucking Perot... That's how long I've been sick of the partisan bullshit, and let me tell you motherfuckers, back then, it was like 1/1000th as bad...

I'm tapped the fuck out on fucks to give bud, I see someone spewing assumptions and bitching about how those assumptions are going to fuck themselves over and take their own flag away. If you like the flag, STOP TAKING FLAGS AWAY FROM PEOPLE. The US flag means racist because YOU are saying it does, not because they are... YOU decided what the flags, statues, street names, etc. meant, and tore the all down over the meaning YOU gave them. Billy bob isn't taking symbols away, he's banning books from schools. Tearing down symbols is your thing buddy.

Liberty and justice for all means it includes motherfuckers you don't like... diesel driving Billy Bob has exactly as much entitlement to his symbols as you do to put books in libraries, and if you can't understand that, then that flag doesn't mean a fucking thing anyway.

"And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it's not irrecoverable."

I just simply don't agree on the irrecoverable part :) or more accurately, I don't believe it's worth the effort to "recover" evidence from a shitbag. Dudes a testimony for sale, nothing he has to say has any value as truth.

"Much as you seem to wish it was."

I don't wish that (I don't really care much outside of wishing the word trump would gain some fucking obscurity... it's like a really bad penny), I just don't like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It's a political headhunt, and it's very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We're trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I'm not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.

I'm confused by your comment... threads left to users tend to die, but successful ones are successful because they're left to users?

That's how I'm reading it...

Are you just saying it's random?

I'd highly prefer a community that's successful and active because it just happened to sprout up on its own than have an active community that was nurtured and encouraged by modsto become that way. Which is to say I think I agree with you :)

It's not "if you tell the truth"... It's "if you say what we say is the truth"...

If there's proof that what he's going to testify to now is the truth, what the fuck do they need his testimony for? They have proof of this ostensible "truth" you're claiming they want him to say, so why is it necessary to have a known liar testify?

This is bullshit. I'm not fucking buying this. You can't testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.

The real issue here isn't the internet...

The real issue is that this creates a new weapon of mass distraction that both Dems and reps can and will use against their opposition in the political fuck fuck games of the future.

Might be reps are gonna jump on it to go after the alphabet soup kids today (no objection to there being an acronym, but fucking pick one...), but invariably, the people who are bitching about how this will be weaponised by "the other guys" are 100% within a decade going to be firing rounds off using the exact same gun and think it's totally ok suddenly because the other guys are the target.

They probably already know what they'll be shooting at with it, because both sides are supporting it.

Dafuq?

I'm kinda ok with the impoundment, the "you can't fly in our airspace because your government invaded another country" is slightly sketchy but not completely indefensible.

Transferring ownership to Ukraine is a little too much though... Its essentially a civil asset forfeiture and that shit in general needs to stop being a fucking thing.

If the prosecution believes that perjury should be prosecuted, this mans second testimony should have put him in prison, because he either committed perjury previously, or is committing it now.

That's where I step off the bus and say "hey, this is fucked". That's the line for me. You can't base an indictment off testimony that someone made under the auspices of that.

I wildly disagree with it at the bottom too... the "let the little fish testify" isn't better, and I don't support that shit either. This is a little worse though... this fish is either lying or has lied, under oath. He's factually proven that he's committed perjury... If the prosecution is threatening him with perjury, they basically own him, because he's factually demonstrably committed perjury based simply on the existence of two opposing testimonies...

So "say this, or go to prison". That's fucking extortion.

Yes... this guy was most likely compelled by trump to lie. Maybe it was his salary, maybe a nice fat check, maybe threats, maybe he has the weird zealot fascination with trump that some people have for whatever reason.

Then, the prosecution decided that since they are successfully prosecuting false statements as felonies, to the degree of that constituting "high crimes and treason" (because all of this is just an extension of an impeachment attempt), they could throw this guy under the same bus as trump, and threaten him with a major felony charge of lying. They used this to compel him to change his testimony, ostensibly to the truth, but it's still under duress...

He's still being compelled, and is either lying under duress of the former compulsion, or lying under duress of the current compulsion.

He's got two choices of compulsion. One is that he doesn't get money, the other is that he sits in a prison cell for possibly decades. Which one would you pick? The current compulsion for me is definitely far worse, so if faced with a choice, I'd likely go with the one that reduces the chance of decades of imprisonment, especially considering that when he gets out of prison, he'll be broke as fuck anyway... I would lie to avoid prison before I'd lie for money. Would you not?

Not to say that's what happening, but there's no way to know. What I can say with certainty is that hes testified to two opposing stories and one has to be a lie. He has, factually, based only on the evidence, falsified a testimony. Which one though? No way to know for sure, which means he's not a valid witness and nothing he has said is believable. For either side. Fuck anything this guy says, throw it out, there's other evidence, other witnesses, fuck this guy and anything he has to say.

This IS how criminal organizations work, so why is the prosecution doing it? Why is the legal system relying on testimony they've extorted from someone? THAT is actually my only real point tbh. I don't approve of a testimony being made unders duress of the threat of a felony false statement charge... that's fucking extortion and I personally don't think the ends justified the means on that. Throw this testimony out...

So instead of being bought, he's being extorted? Yeah that totally makes the current version of his story more valid... Throw this motherfucker off the witness stand and send him on his way, he's either full of shit or he's full of shit...

Are we planning on indicting everyone who testifies for the defense on fraud charges? Is that how this shit works now? Tell me how this is an improvement over trump buying witnesses or slipping religious fervor inducing drugs into their food or whatever ye fuck he's doing to get people to back up his bullshit?

Indicting witnesses isn't the fucking high road. Fuck trump, but fuck this bullshit too. This is exactly the sort of shit that "defund the police" types bemoan when it's done to a nobody, but hey, as long as we get trump, it's all fucking good... it's fucking not good...

And asteroids ffs

Oh... I like you :)

So the Senate is looking to implement a ban that already exists in California and has viable options included already, and the house is doing... what? Trying to help that small group save money maybe?

I'll switch sides based on that article you linked. Original one didn't say jack about a viable alternative already existing, and it seems like that little bit of data changes the whole thing just a tad...

For context, the house version requires the fuel currently available to stay available in perpetuity, because if it's banned seven years from now, somebody somewhere will crash and fucking die trying to use an incompatible fuel...

Would you support a 7 year phase out of unleaded in favor of some new geewiz crap that will destroy the car you bought last week? The house version is an attempt to maintain support for some small aircraft owners.

The Senate version completely disregards that small minority in favor of Karen. There's some merit in the fact that the aircraft industry has had like half a fucking century to do the right thing and didn't, and if we want to talk about some sanctions on the people who've built and sold the aircraft that can't operate safely without lead for the past fifty years because reasons, I'm pretty on board with that actually, but chopping the lifespan of a brand new small aircraft down to seven years is kinda fucked up. I'd be pissed if a law did that with my car.

A ban on manufacturing of lead requiring engines would be infinitely more reasonable... 30 years ago... that's the god damned takeaway here, this is knee jerk bullshit trying to fix something that needed attention decades ago. Somebody file a lawsuit against everyone who was building lead required engines from like 1990 to now.

This shit makes me laugh...

Most places you got a relatively small geographical region dictating policy to huge swaths of rural areas, and Texas is down there with the tail wagging the dog instead.

Hopefully it doesn't fly, but objectively, that's some funny shit.

I can't believe the level of stupid in what I just read...

In 2017, Texas decided they didn't want planned parenthood covered by Medicaid. Let's just ignore the merits of it entirely and respect Texas's right to be as stupid as they wanna be.

So for four years, from 2017 to 2021, they went through whatever bureaucratic/legal process is required to remove an agency from Medicaid. Also ignoring the merit of it, that's their right.

Now they wanna say that all claims made during that process are fraudulent? Because while pp was still part of Medicaid, they didn't want them to be?

I don't want texas to have property taxes, I'm gonna start a movement to get rid of them (hypothetical, I don't live in Texas), let's say I succeed 30 years from now... do I get my money back?

No you jackasses. That's not how shit works. It's not rational, it's not logical, it doesn't pass a common sense test, you're fucking stupid.