cogman @ cogman @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

566

Joined

2 yr. ago

Conspiracy bullshit and racism.

Conservative debate has basically devolved into "But, can you tell me what a woman is?". Trump could have a team of the best conservative debaters in his ear and he'd do just about as well.

Also doesn't help that he doesn't listen to jack shit so he'd likely rip out the headphone for being annoying.

That comes in at an additional 400lbs on a vehicle that weighs 6,670 lbs if you assume the maximal weight of the panels and the need for a metal roof anyways. That extra 6% weight just doesn't matter. 6% losses range for 12% free charging seems like a worthy tradeoff to me. (and again, this is the maximal value).

Power to weight doesn't matter as we are talking about using a solar panel instead of a roof. There's no added weight. The car will already have inbuilt inverters so the only real weight add is the wiring. But also, this is a postal vehicle which will have large swings in weight anyways. A couple of extra pounds doesn't make a difference here.

Further, this isn't a car, which has a much smaller surface area. These things have about 10 square meters of flat roof. That's a peak output of ~3kW. (realistically, probably closer to 1.5kW average throughout a day) which translates into 12kWh of charge in any given day. Roughly 10% of the battery capacity could be restored daily.

For large vehicles, like delivery vehicles and busses, the math on making the roof out solar panels instead of steel changes.

The one thing I wish they did with these things is make the roof out of solar panels.

These things are going to spend most days sitting outside in direct sunlight. They have nice big flat roofs which makes them pretty perfect to throw on solar panels. You likely would not need much charge infrastructure for the new vehicles and you'd have cut the ownership cost down even more significantly (especially in states with high electrical rates).

Regardless, these things are a no-brainer even without solar on all the vehicles. These are low speed vehicles with dedicated routes and loads of stop/go action. There's not a more clear place to use an EV.

usr does mean user. It was the place for user managed stuff originally. The home directory used to be a sub directory of the usr directory.

The meaning and purpose of unix directories has very organically evolved. Heck, it's still evolving. For example, the new .config directory in the home directory.

Lol, I try to be reasonable. I know my positions aren't generally popular which is why I'm not saying Kamala should campaign on them. But I could see them working quite well for a congressional or Senate seat.

Ironically, progressive positions do often play well in deep red states. It's centrist Democrats that have a tendency to outright reject them.

If the Democrats were the minority party to the green party then yes, this is still sound. This is how politics works in FPTP election systems. You may not like it, but it's not unreasonable. If the purpose of the green party is to get its policies enacted then the best way for that is pushing and endorsing when concessions are made.

Heck, for a lot of its positions the best thing the green party could do is run for local and state level positions. But they don't do that, they only run for presidential positions. They waste a ton of time and money getting nothing done. You only hear about the green party once every 4 years which is why they are unserious.

And I'm not even saying they can't keep doing their dumb campaigns. However, they work directly against their goals by running in contested states. The green party pulls votes from Democrats which are the most in line party with the green party goals. By running in contested states they help Republicans get elected. Of the green party was more than just a joke or a rat fuck, they'd mainly be running in states like Idaho or California.

We can both be right. My goal is showing how appealing government spending can be and is generally. The more people thinking this way, the more palatable "you know what, maybe we should have a 1000% tax on private jet and yacht fuel".

Raising taxes on multimillionaires/billionaires should be a lot more popular than it currently is.

You know what would really help small businesses, like a lot? Public health insurance (covering things like vision and dental). A huge part of the cost of doing business is benefits for employees. Well, with public health insurance that's a huge budget item that suddenly small businesses don't have to pay.

Want to make it better? Expand social security to be something you could live off of. Boom, now you as a small business owner don't need benefits like 401ks. Your employees will be well taken care of by a government ran pension.

Want to go a step further? Expand public housing, public transport, and food security programs. Now all the sudden a business doesn't need to pay top dollar because the cost of living for everyone has been significantly decreased. You can easily find low wage workers and hire crews of them because the added income for everyone is more of a bonus rather than a necessity.

What else could you do? Reduce the full time work week from 40 hours to 30 hours. For a small business, it means you can actually focus on having your employees doing useful work rather than having them hang around an extra 10 hours a week doing nothing. For the employees, now they have spare time on their hands which means more opportunities to interact with the community and small businesses.

By taking care of the basic needs of the population you give the population a lot of spare capital and time. All of which can stimulate the economy to new heights.

Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The green party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Democrats agree to their policies.

Running a doomed to fail candidate that only weakens the likelihood of the most left candidates and pulling progressives out of the Democrat party is a bad move.

Say what your will about RFK, he's getting political power from Trump by dropping (if Trump wins). What will the green party get? Nothing.

Dropping and endorsing after concessions is the real way for a minority party to weld power. Running no matter what is just delusion that works counter to any goal you might have.

What's crazy is they aren't saying that Trump is too extreme, they are complaining that he isn't extreme enough.

If Trump gets in, we set back the pro-life cause and free markets by a generation at least

They are mad that he's not campaigning on a total abortion ban and complete federal government shutdown.

Corporate media likes elections to be close and exciting because that draws ratings. Hence the reason they put on kid gloves for the idiot fascist.

Ad hominem: check.

Don’t expect any rational choices here.

Perhaps don't cry about rationality if all you have in your brain is logical fallacies.

Here's a quote from the site you cherry picked

Some people may choose to go vegan, for some it may be because they do not believe in farmed animal practices and animal exploitation, for others it may be due to environmental concerns. Whatever the reason The Vegan Society is here to support everyone on their vegan journey.

Gee, looks like the vegan society also recognizes some people become vegan because of climate change... Or maybe you are going to redefine more terms so you can win your argument.

Or maybe you are pulling a definition not commonly accepted by the community or English speakers. No, that can't be right, you are obviously smarter than I am. After all, you are a rational person that'd never engage in strawman attacks.

Got it, so you are emotionally defining veganism in such a way that you aren't actually vegan if you don't get there for emotional reasons.

If that's your definition of veganism then of course nobody can get there with reason. You've created a tautology with your emotion filled definition.

For the record, veganism is defined by MW as

: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan

That was the definition I was operating under. Sorry I didn't Intuit your arbitrary definition you pulled from "eat meat.com" or whatever you got it.

Meat production is a prime contributor to climate change. Large amounts of resources go into raising meat. Further, cattle and pig production (not so much chicken) is the prime pathway to food contamination. Whenever you see lettuce recalls because of e. coli, that's because animal shit got mixed in with the lettuce or the water for the lettuce.

Choosing not to eat meat because of these facts seems like a pretty rational choice, no emotion involved.

She needs to fire the Biden campaign managers. People liked her because she's not Biden. So why is she letting the morons that ran his campaign in the ground run her campaign the same way?

She does not need to pivot right, this is idiotic.

Opinions on what? I can't think of a single cabinet position i'd want a conservative running. Their motto of decreasing government spending and increasing privatization of the government is antithetical to good government.

Like even something like the DoJ is a mess because I don't want a tough on crime Republican in there prosecuting protestors for resisting arrest.

I really hate Harris's hard pivot to try and be centrist. I highly doubt there's a large contingency of Republicans that are willing to vote for a Democrat. There are a bunch of progressive, though, that I think she can lose by trying to define herself as a better Republican.

She needs to get rid of the delusional idiots that ran the Biden campaign into the ground.