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/)BE
Posts
10
Comments
560
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • This. I stopped using anything cancellation fee model in my country. My career forced me to change places, (another cancer of modern society). The fees were huge to my young self who was financially weak enough to be forced to moved.

    Just buy something you can afford buying immediately. And in this remote work age, just say FU to the businesses who force you into pay huge costs like that, monetary and by other means. All done for benefiting themselves.

  • Answer me this: Is manufacturing gasoline cars carbon free?

    I stop here. Manufacturing EVs aren't carbon free either. Actually, manufacturing the battery emits far more carbon than manufacturing an engine.

    So, all I see from you is move the goal post repeatedly while not countering my main point: difficulty of regulation in manufacturing EVs.

  • As I reiterate again and again, I don't care about energy efficiency. I'm talking about the difficulty with regulating EV manufacturing to actually achieve net zero. You say I made it up, but can you say so at least after reading the very OP post that you're commenting in? Because it's written there, if I'm not mistaken.

    And I'm no FOX listener or whatever. You should realize how much assumptions you made about me, and how that annoys me.

  • I don't understand your main part, which is the energy efficiency (edit: I mean, that's bot the point). I'm talking about the regulatory problem with the EV manufacturing that makes is very hard to actually achieve net zero with EVs.

    The rest is fine.

  • Seems you don't understand that efuel is net zero. When it comes to efuel, it doesn't make sense to argue with someone who doesn't understand that part. So, I stop engaging with you here.

    Anyway, I meant that EV manufacturing process has too many ways to cheat, while in case of efuel the regulations only have to happen at the factory to achieve net zero.

    That's all I have to say. And that's a fact, whatever you say.

  • I prefer the future using efuel because EV manufacturing is very easy to cheat. I don't even believe that the EV lobbying is done in good faith.

    Edit: I don't know why but efuel is the only subject whatever counterargument I receive is always not to the point. If people instead say it has a flaw in the manufacturing process, citing a scholarly article, I'd take it seriously. But nobody has done that so far.

    Edit 2: yeah, the replies I got for this comment confirms my first Edit.

  • I believe in most countries that number is close to zero. No way majority of the 10,000 dogs are life-threatening, and yet the US police disagree and shoot. Tells so much about US police's justification on shooting at people.

  • This is the default law action from Musk these days. Also, a nonsensical law suite is enough to shut a big newspaper sometimes. The governing Liberal Democratic Party in Japan successfully silenced a news organization by starting a 1 billion yen (or some amount) nonsense law suit. Hell, they control the supreme court judges also.

  • I'm skeptical about the popular theory.

    While I haven't checked their papers, I still do think this particular article is not convincing. They say the man-the-hunter theorists rejected data but don't cite articles that point at the flaw. It's business as usual to overlook data in real-world science. The question is, how significant the overlook was, but they don't cite anything scholarly, call it a day and move on.

    Then they say traditional studies can have bias because they are done by men. This sounds shockingly unprofessional to me.