|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 23 2017 16:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity.  Supporting projects like solar FREAKING roadways is not sheer necessity, it's money laundering schemes masquerading as solutions for the future for legislators and donors who don't know any better. And there's definitely a difference between an industry that requires startup capital and some market incentives and a fundamentally unviable idea that is mostly used for the tech-hype equivalent of money laundering. Your willingness to dismiss the cons and the scam artists as "yeah some people just milk the cow but whatever" is kind of laughable in the face of a rather widespread abuse of incentives that comes from legislators that want to appear to be hip and modern but don't know the first thing about the science behind any of those projects. And if we're talking externalization of costs by pollution, there's plenty of externalization of costs on the part of EVs as well; if an EV makes 80% of the emissions but it's all emitted by the utility company then is it really zero-emissions? No, but they get zero-emission incentives anyways. What would it take for me to take the bus? Perhaps not living 50km from work and a 40 minute walking distance from my bus station. But there ain't all that many cars here so it's sort of small fry in the grand scheme of things. Back when I lived in an actual city center and there was a bus stop just a few minutes from my residence I would absolutely ride the bus or the trains (living in an urban environment is fucking terrible, but that's besides the point). Sufficient traffic makes the train lane much more serviceable, as long as the public transport infrastructure is good. And it's cities like Los Angeles where a lot of the EV craze develops anyways (largely due to a huge congestion problem) so it's a good place to start with public transport as well (and to be fair LA has made leaps and bounds over the past decade in that regard as well). "We need to encourage innovation" is the same deal as "we need to stop climate change." Yes, it's true, and no one disagrees. The problem is if you ignore the realities that the facts don't support that every idiot that promises big ideas will be the future, or if you justify every foreseeable money laundering scheme's financial failure as "you got to break a few eggs" then you're frankly just wasting valuable resources and you might as well have just invested into that Chinese bus that you could drive under. Because that's about as viable as some of the crap that gets funding.
Pick one example and post a sweeping comment without discerning. Sounds like something you'd do.
|
On September 23 2017 17:40 Aquanim wrote:To be fair there was also this questionShow nested quote +On August 28 2017 02:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'll ask again. Given the choice between BLM or Nazis getting what they want, which would you prefer? which bears some resemblance to "are you a Nazi", particularly in terms of likely reactions to any given answer.
Sans context I could understand that interpretation. He was going on about how him defending Nazis "peacefully" trying to convince people to commit genocide on people that look like me was him participating in the defense of civil rights and expressing disappointment in the left for abandoning their principles.
I think that makes it a perfectly fair question though not intended to be interpreted as "are you a Nazi?" But, "Your posts seem to be more protective of Nazi "protesters" advocating genocide than they do with BLM protesters objecting to the massive, systemic, and perpetual violations of their constitutional rights. If you had to choose between them getting their way which would you choose?". This is a "lesser evil" question more or less.
Perhaps that clears it up a bit?
|
That does clear it up a bit and would have been better for all involved if you did post that instead. Also maybe refrain from referencing the cross when talking about someones action in the same post as the KKK.
I think its fair to say that its easier to take an infrastructure of electric cars and make it lower emissions then trying to have regular cars and lowering emissions from there. It would be better to start with a rual focus on EV where its easier to set up wind and solar farms to sustain those EV's without emissions on the scale of larger cities.
To remind everyone all this emissions from nations are small potatoes compared to the international super freighters that provide the modern economy with the goods it has. they're still working with unregulated fuel oil that compared to Diesel today looks like open garbage burning.
|
On September 23 2017 21:26 Sermokala wrote:
That does clear it up a bit and would have been better for all involved if you did post that instead. Also maybe refrain from referencing the cross when talking about someones action in the same post as the KKK.
I think its fair to say that its easier to take an infrastructure of electric cars and make it lower emissions then trying to have regular cars and lowering emissions from there. It would be better to start with a rual focus on EV where its easier to set up wind and solar farms to sustain those EV's without emissions on the scale of larger cities.
To remind everyone all this emissions from nations are small potatoes compared to the international super freighters that provide the modern economy with the goods it has. they're still working with unregulated fuel oil that compared to Diesel today looks like open garbage burning.
As far as I can find boat is much much better for the environment. One boat releases a lot of pollution but it also transports more per pollution released due to the massive amount transported. We should of course work on improving boats but they are not the major source as you seem to hint at.
Intercontinental logistics is what one should be talking about and not the boats that are a factor 10 better than airplanes for those flows (trucks and trains often not being possible). The problem is that transporting anything produces pollution. The longer the distance, the more pollution. Boats are bad because they make it economical to transport extremely long distances, thus promoting the trade (which is good for peace).
|
On September 23 2017 21:51 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 21:26 Sermokala wrote:
That does clear it up a bit and would have been better for all involved if you did post that instead. Also maybe refrain from referencing the cross when talking about someones action in the same post as the KKK.
I think its fair to say that its easier to take an infrastructure of electric cars and make it lower emissions then trying to have regular cars and lowering emissions from there. It would be better to start with a rual focus on EV where its easier to set up wind and solar farms to sustain those EV's without emissions on the scale of larger cities.
To remind everyone all this emissions from nations are small potatoes compared to the international super freighters that provide the modern economy with the goods it has. they're still working with unregulated fuel oil that compared to Diesel today looks like open garbage burning. As far as I can find boat is much much better for the environment. One boat releases a lot of pollution but it also transports more per pollution released due to the massive amount transported. We should of course work on improving boats but they are not the major source as you seem to hint at. Intercontinental logistics is what one should be talking about and not the boats that are a factor 10 better than airplanes for those flows (trucks and trains often not being possible).
No they're still the major source I'm entirely referring to. The top 20 give or take produce more emissions then the worlds automobiles. If there was an international treaty to get them to use anywhere near reasonable fuels it would do more to lower global warming then any electric vehicle initiative.
|
On September 23 2017 21:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 21:51 Yurie wrote:On September 23 2017 21:26 Sermokala wrote:
That does clear it up a bit and would have been better for all involved if you did post that instead. Also maybe refrain from referencing the cross when talking about someones action in the same post as the KKK.
I think its fair to say that its easier to take an infrastructure of electric cars and make it lower emissions then trying to have regular cars and lowering emissions from there. It would be better to start with a rual focus on EV where its easier to set up wind and solar farms to sustain those EV's without emissions on the scale of larger cities.
To remind everyone all this emissions from nations are small potatoes compared to the international super freighters that provide the modern economy with the goods it has. they're still working with unregulated fuel oil that compared to Diesel today looks like open garbage burning. As far as I can find boat is much much better for the environment. One boat releases a lot of pollution but it also transports more per pollution released due to the massive amount transported. We should of course work on improving boats but they are not the major source as you seem to hint at. Intercontinental logistics is what one should be talking about and not the boats that are a factor 10 better than airplanes for those flows (trucks and trains often not being possible). No they're still the major source I'm entirely referring to. The top 20 give or take produce more emissions then the worlds automobiles. If there was an international treaty to get them to use anywhere near reasonable fuels it would do more to lower global warming then any electric vehicle initiative.
Could you please source your claim. I tried googling a bit but only found the splits in sectors and not how transports are split up.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
|
This is pretty petty in my books. On a related note what is with this spike in the war on athletes and their free expression?
|
Norway28683 Posts
I was listening to his alabama rally yesterday. He talked a lot about football and how good the alabama teams are and how they, just like him, keeps winning. I think from now on he's basically gonna publicly cheer for the teams that are from states where he won, and cheer against the teams from states he lost, cuz there's probably solid overlap between the 'diehard football' and 'trump base' person.
|
It's a weird dynamic where they are somewhat respected but also viewed as jesters. The fact that athletes are predominantly black and physically exceptional makes it easy for some people to view them as an entertainment source rather than people. They aren't seen as deserving of this type of expression, as if they have a duty to be performers at all times.
|
Trump asking others to be professional while being a whiny little boy is rather hypocritical.
|
I say bring it into the court of public opinion so America knows where she stands.
Like the google guy I think you risk your job expressing political opinions while on the job/through work channels, what matters is what we think as a society.
Does the country want the "assholes" off the field or does it want to take the massive and systemic violations of PoC's rights seriously? Think everyone knows which one I'm rooting for, or maybe the NFL turns into NASCAR? This country did elect the guy who saw some "very fine people" marching with the Nazis, and sees "assholes" peacefully protesting rampant constitutional abuses.
On September 23 2017 23:57 Mohdoo wrote:It's a weird dynamic where they are somewhat respected but also viewed as jesters. The fact that athletes are predominantly black and physically exceptional makes it easy for some people to view them as an entertainment source rather than people. They aren't seen as deserving of this type of expression, as if they have a duty to be performers at all times.
yet a lot of the same people will gobble up whatever Fabio has to say on Fox News or tout Tom Brady's endorsement... Has nothing to do with them being athletes and everything to do with politics and race.
|
To give some context to this tweet:
- The Golden State Warriors all think Trump is a dingus. And they don't really pull their punches when asked for their opinion.
- Everyone already knows not a single NBA player or team is going to visit Trump, except for alt-right supporter Spencer Hawes and maaaaaaybe Andrew Bogut. Its public knowledge that a good number of teams have started boycotting Trump's hotels.
We already knew all of this months ago and Trump has to know this too if he keeps tabs on how his businesses are running. This aren't no Belichick situation where he's not saying a single word. We know the Cavs, Warriors and Spurs (the only teams that can actually win) all hate his guts because they all went out of their way to tell everyone what they feel about the president.
Trump is predictable in that everything he understands about policy and politics come from things he sees on cable news. Turns out that Fox and Friends discussed Steph Curry basically saying "I don't want to go to the Whitehouse". Come 20 minutes and we get that tweet immortalized into the presidential archives.
That tweet is 100% an emotional response to that Fox and Friends segment because the timeline matches and he'd be targeting Kevin Durant (who everyone thinks is a bitch so to speak) and not Steph Curry (who is cleaner than newly washed bedsheets) if he wanted support behind that tweet.
Of course, Trump goes for the "you didn't break up with me, I broke up with you" response because he's completely transparent in everything he does. In many ways, he's a gold mine for intelligence operatives and we really saw that when Saudi Arabia completely worked him earlier this year.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 23 2017 17:48 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 16:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity. Supporting projects like solar FREAKING roadways is not sheer necessity, it's money laundering schemes masquerading as solutions for the future for legislators and donors who don't know any better. And there's definitely a difference between an industry that requires startup capital and some market incentives and a fundamentally unviable idea that is mostly used for the tech-hype equivalent of money laundering. Your willingness to dismiss the cons and the scam artists as "yeah some people just milk the cow but whatever" is kind of laughable in the face of a rather widespread abuse of incentives that comes from legislators that want to appear to be hip and modern but don't know the first thing about the science behind any of those projects. And if we're talking externalization of costs by pollution, there's plenty of externalization of costs on the part of EVs as well; if an EV makes 80% of the emissions but it's all emitted by the utility company then is it really zero-emissions? No, but they get zero-emission incentives anyways. What would it take for me to take the bus? Perhaps not living 50km from work and a 40 minute walking distance from my bus station. But there ain't all that many cars here so it's sort of small fry in the grand scheme of things. Back when I lived in an actual city center and there was a bus stop just a few minutes from my residence I would absolutely ride the bus or the trains (living in an urban environment is fucking terrible, but that's besides the point). Sufficient traffic makes the train lane much more serviceable, as long as the public transport infrastructure is good. And it's cities like Los Angeles where a lot of the EV craze develops anyways (largely due to a huge congestion problem) so it's a good place to start with public transport as well (and to be fair LA has made leaps and bounds over the past decade in that regard as well). "We need to encourage innovation" is the same deal as "we need to stop climate change." Yes, it's true, and no one disagrees. The problem is if you ignore the realities that the facts don't support that every idiot that promises big ideas will be the future, or if you justify every foreseeable money laundering scheme's financial failure as "you got to break a few eggs" then you're frankly just wasting valuable resources and you might as well have just invested into that Chinese bus that you could drive under. Because that's about as viable as some of the crap that gets funding. Pick one example and post a sweeping comment without discerning. Sounds like something you'd do.
If that's all you got out of it then you missed my point entirely and it makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote rather than just repeat a canned response based on a previously developed caricature. Though that's perhaps possibly a more systemic issue: the examples I cited also had the same kind of crap as defense. You have to invest in the future, can't be a nonbeliever, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, so on and so forth.
Not sure there's much more to add than "read my previous post better." Because it's all in there.
|
Oh man... Inb4 the "how could you disrespect the President like that!?!?!" crocodile tears start flowing
|
Like I said, basically the whole NBA hates Trump. And Trump targeting Steph Curry, the greatest shooter alive with an impeccable reputation as a devout Christian, family man and all round nice guy, by lying about his Whitehouse visit intentions?
Yeah, that's a way for athletes to start thinking seriously about the current Whitehouse situation.
Edit:
From the National Basketball Players Association Executive Director:
There's no way the majority of people in the NBA aren't going to back Steph Curry on this one. If Trump wanted a soft target, he really should have gone after Kevin Durant.
|
And just like that, I suddenly care about basketball. Whatever team he plays for is alright by me.
|
On September 24 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 17:48 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 16:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 15:55 Artisreal wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams. I suppose you just don't want to understand how scaling up an industry that is driven not by competitiveness but by sheer need for change works. The example you give is basically the same. Either you force people to use the bus (haha American distances) or your highly subsidise the tickets, give the buses a free lane and evergreen on the traffic lights so it's got don't advantage. Have WiFi in them and people work in there. What would make you take the bus? You're commuting every day, right? You put incentives in place to reach a political goal because internalisation of external costs is a concept that exists for quite some time but hasn't reached political realities yet. Some may have been milking the cow a lot but that doesn't make it less necessary for your country to jump the renewables train. And subsidies are necessary for solar in most places. I don't exactly know the US's market conditions but I suspect the same. I don't get how freedom loving people don't want to produce their own electricity. Supporting projects like solar FREAKING roadways is not sheer necessity, it's money laundering schemes masquerading as solutions for the future for legislators and donors who don't know any better. And there's definitely a difference between an industry that requires startup capital and some market incentives and a fundamentally unviable idea that is mostly used for the tech-hype equivalent of money laundering. Your willingness to dismiss the cons and the scam artists as "yeah some people just milk the cow but whatever" is kind of laughable in the face of a rather widespread abuse of incentives that comes from legislators that want to appear to be hip and modern but don't know the first thing about the science behind any of those projects. And if we're talking externalization of costs by pollution, there's plenty of externalization of costs on the part of EVs as well; if an EV makes 80% of the emissions but it's all emitted by the utility company then is it really zero-emissions? No, but they get zero-emission incentives anyways. What would it take for me to take the bus? Perhaps not living 50km from work and a 40 minute walking distance from my bus station. But there ain't all that many cars here so it's sort of small fry in the grand scheme of things. Back when I lived in an actual city center and there was a bus stop just a few minutes from my residence I would absolutely ride the bus or the trains (living in an urban environment is fucking terrible, but that's besides the point). Sufficient traffic makes the train lane much more serviceable, as long as the public transport infrastructure is good. And it's cities like Los Angeles where a lot of the EV craze develops anyways (largely due to a huge congestion problem) so it's a good place to start with public transport as well (and to be fair LA has made leaps and bounds over the past decade in that regard as well). "We need to encourage innovation" is the same deal as "we need to stop climate change." Yes, it's true, and no one disagrees. The problem is if you ignore the realities that the facts don't support that every idiot that promises big ideas will be the future, or if you justify every foreseeable money laundering scheme's financial failure as "you got to break a few eggs" then you're frankly just wasting valuable resources and you might as well have just invested into that Chinese bus that you could drive under. Because that's about as viable as some of the crap that gets funding. Pick one example and post a sweeping comment without discerning. Sounds like something you'd do. If that's all you got out of it then you missed my point entirely and it makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote rather than just repeat a canned response based on a previously developed caricature. Though that's perhaps possibly a more systemic issue: the examples I cited also had the same kind of crap as defense. You have to invest in the future, can't be a nonbeliever, they laughed at the Wright Brothers, so on and so forth. Not sure there's much more to add than "read my previous post better." Because it's all in there.
What are you going on about?
Crying about electromobility not being the saviour of all transportation related challenges?
Where did you read me talking about that in context with your post?
I read your inital post as a sweeping dismissal of efforts to find ways of providing energy the renewable way.
Your reaction is to post about freaking electric highways and electric cars being fueled by dirty power.
What exactly do you expect as a response? Praise that you found out that it is better if the EV runs on renewable power? Go get your nobel prize money fam.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 24 2017 01:38 Artisreal wrote:
I read your inital post as a sweeping dismissal of efforts to find ways of providing energy the renewable way.
Then you read it wrong and I have nothing more to say to you.
|
I find it interesting he never attacks any of the white coaches who criticize him (Popovich, Kerr, a bunch of others, Coach K, The lousiville coach, the NC coach etc a ton of other college coaches.) I'm curious why this was the thing he decided was too much.
|
On September 24 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 01:38 Artisreal wrote:
I read your inital post as a sweeping dismissal of efforts to find ways of providing energy the renewable way. Then you read it wrong and I have nothing more to say to you.
Glad we cleared that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
