spidermanchild @ spidermanchild @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

101

Joined

1 yr. ago

The planet is warming though, so the term is not without merit. We have headlines every day about 1.5C of warming. The problem has always been that the earth's systems are too complicated for regular folks and they don't understand that a more energetic system can produce all sorts of anomalies in any given location. There's no magical term that will resonate with denialists anyway so why bother trying?

Practically everywhere is a wildfire zone though. Yes we need much more forest management, infrastructure hardening, fire resources, etc, but giving folks a one time payout and then they move to another area that gets destroyed and now they don't get support doesn't seem helpful since we can't really predict what will burn. It's simply harder than e.g. flood mapping.

Marginal cost is never zero though. That would imply truly free unlimited energy. There is a cost to build solar, wind, storage, etc. that needs to be amortized. We also want to incentivize folks to not waste energy, so a reasonably strong link between usage and price is helpful.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out for gas infrastructure as folks electrify and cut their gas service. Once the spiral starts, fixed costs will grow for the remaining customers and push more people to cancel their service.

But the size of the array, and therefore the cost of the array, are intimately tied to the production of said array. So there can't be flat rate unless consumption never surpasses production, which is of course will when you have zero marginal cost.

Of course, and that's part of the charm. They bag out like a pair of leather slippers. I read something recently about them using a shit ton more adhesive in the new Forester so maybe it's improving? My 2015 isn't that bad, but I hate driving in general so basic appliance standards is fine by me.

We're talking about two different groups of people here. The working class trying to survive get a pass on individual actions because they have no means. They should probably vote and organize and get engaged to better their outcomes.

I'm talking about the millions of people that have the means, but just don't because they quite literally don't care. I see them every day. It's the millions of people buying new $60k trucks and SUVs every few years, and large suburban homes, and who have trash cans that are 5x the size of mine that still can't contain their mindless shopping detritus, and spend tons of money on trendy home furnishings but "don't think solar makes sense" or don't bother trying literally anything that reduces carbon.

I'm saying that giving millions of these people a pass because a billionaire is worse isn't helpful, and expecting these folks to magically work towards sustainable collective action when they spend their entire lives living the opposite of sustainability is simply not going to work. If you can convince neighbors to get heat pumps solar and give them a test ride on your ebike and show them how easy it is to live without gas you can probably get them to vote for someone that is focused on the climate. Sitting around you and your neighbors matching F150s blaming China and Bezos and speaking in abstract terms about "collective action" seems less effective to me.

Sorry for the rant!

They're not a distraction. Lots of us have solar, eliminated fossil fuels in the home, use public transit, don't buy shit we don't need, etc. Thats literally collective action, and we need a lot more people to do it. Nobody is pretending like their single action is going to magically fix everything.

What does collective action mean to you? We have tax incentives for electrification as a result of policies borne from voting correctly in 2020 - now actually getting those solar panels is an individual action that magically doesn't matter? Or is it a result of collective action and it is ok?

Everyone should be doing as much as they possibly can given their means - personal and collective. It's not an either or.

The point is that if everyone did what you (and I) do, we'd actually get somewhere. Seems like we're in the minority though, unfortunately. That doesn't make the person you replied to wrong, it just means most people continue to just blindly consume, and when they can't consume as much as they want they blindly vote for asswipes promising them even more. That's the cultural problem at the heart of this all. I'm running out of individual actions I can do too, but that doesn't mean those were not helpful.

What kind of politicians are people voting for at the state level in GA? Separately, they're also blowing ass loads of money on nuclear.

You're absolutely right that he's dumb. It would therefore be extremely easy for progressives to get their message out because Joe isn't smart enough (nor cares to) push back. He just agrees with everything you say if you sound convincing. So why aren't Democrats and progressives going on his show? We've entered this spiral where people like Kamala don't want to "legitimize" him or whatever, despite him being the easiest person to talk to ever with a huge audience. Just play the game people! Ignoring this whole sphere isn't working.

Lawyers hate this one weird trick! That wouldn't work because you're not actually being more "strict", you're still in opposition to the federal law. Being more "strict" means you're still in compliance with federal law, you just do extra stuff on top. Semantics can't change that.

How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn't magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don't hate you either. I can't say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn't you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?

Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It's just a vote, you're not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It's really not that complicated.

If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.

What does this even mean? What TV shows are you even talking about? Indiana is a US state.

I'm too lazy to look this up, but I believe death rates were higher out of cities vs in cities. Half the reason hospitals were packed in cities is because rural people went where the ventilators were. Everywhere had all the covid waves, they just hit cities first.

Elderly tend to be more R, and D folks were more likely to mask and vaccinate. But elderly vaccinated pretty well across the board and the divide was bigger in the young. Lots of factors, but my money is on D making out slightly better as a broad cohort. Tragic all around though.

Ok I did some searching and excess mortality points to higher rural impact, but official cause of death data is mixed (too lazy to link though).

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-sas-comparing-urban-and-rural-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic

Nobody said it was difficult to understand. I agree it's a dead simple idea, and like most dead simple ideas it's not actually a good idea. There's a reason Bernie Sanders wholeheartedly endorsed Kamala (and Hillary), but sure, all the .ml folks must know better. If you think Bernie is too centrist then you need to understand that your cohort is so laughably out of step with the populace that you'll never get anywhere. Kind of like where PSL is at with zero seats (ever, btw, not just currently).

Real people will be harmed by another Trump term. Immigrants, women, POC, LGBT, basically anyone other than healthy white men. It says a lot when you think they're all disposable enough to help Trump to win in the hopes of a future socialist movement that won't ever happen because the movement can't even win a single seat anywhere in the country. AOC correctly called the green party "not serious" and they've actually won a small handful of elections, unlike PSL. Movements start from the bottom up, not the top down.

Is that why PSL has a grand total of zero members in office? I thought surely there must be a few, but nope - zero. It's literally a joke to run a candidate for president when you don't have a single member serving in any elected office in the entire country. It's laughable.

And sure, maybe it's not "true accelerationism" but it's a common term to describe leftists that embrace people like Trump because they are deluded into thinking it will somehow break the system and a communist utopia can magically rise from the ashes. Call it whatever you want, but it will never be a good idea.

Just be wary of anyone conflating a simple vote for a 3rd party candidate for president every 4 years with the hard work of actually organizing a socialist movement. They are very different things. A 3rd party that has zero mathematical chance of success and crawls out of the woodwork every 4 years is a spoiler, not serious, and only benefits the fascist. This is just accelerationism.

Unless the plan is something more like Terminator. If you "unshackle" AI and give them a mandate to get CO2 back to 250 ppm things are going to get real.

That's entirely the wrong denominator for this comparison. IRS doesn't write the budget nor do they write tax law, they just collect.