Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Those things will help but I think the major thing you need to look at is why people are choosing not to have kids even if those things are in place (Northern Europe). What is the social setup promoting and making it desirable to have kids in the 20's where biology says it should start? In current setup people choose to get them later, thus end up with fewer of them if they succeed at all.
Historically people have had kids even if their situation is much worse than currently. Removing retirement funds, removing women rights, removing contraceptives and promoting sex over and instead of social media would probably all be more productive and cheaper than your suggestions. I am not in favor of these things but in general as women get rights and can manage by themselves children decrease. I am personally in favor of women's rights in that equation but if the main goal is increasing amount of children it is the point that should likely be targeted.
Basically make the default and only real viable career option for women be to have kids. Or make social pressure and pain points in law very high if they don't get them.
Things like making it impossible to get a university degree if you don't have any kids (for both genders). To make that work you need to also add in cheaper IFV treatments.
At 23 I am by far the youngest parent of basically my entire peer group, there were maybe a couple in my old school year doing something comparable, and we’re quite big by local standards, about 270 people per academic year but not people I knew too well.
I’m 34 now for reference, and I know like two parents, both roughly my age. And I’m quite an extroverted man, the sample size isn’t small.
Wasn’t something I planned put it that way, but when it came to it I didn’t like the alternative.
It just takes far too long, unless you’ve genuinely got a silver spoon to establish yourself in your career or especially housing ladder to take that plunge earlier. The former is more a concern women I know have, that whatever rung they get to, well they’re unlikely to push further on once they’re out on maternity etc.
And while wages aren’t great, Northern Ireland is pretty cheap compared to many places.
What I’ve encountered far less is the whole ‘well with kids I can’t go travelling’ or what have you. Some folks just don’t want kids, but most I talk to who are in long-term things do want them, and it’s economic security that’s putting them off, not wanting to live some hedonistic lifestyle with few responsibilities. Most are so (relatively) old that they’re kind of burned out or bored of such activities anyway.
Until you fix some of those problems, it seems unlikely to change that trend, indeed in areas they’re getting worse.
Add to that that the people who do just say ‘fuck it’ and have kids anyway are frequently, frequently demonised for doing so too.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: Favorite Lies:
- Kambala Harris didn't pass the bar exam
I will just leave this in the words of the book The Truths We Hold (2020) by Kamala Harris: + Show Spoiler +
At the end of my summer internship, I was thrilled to accept a position as deputy district attorney. All I had to do was finish my final year of law school and take the bar exam, and then I’d be able to start my career in the courtroom.
I finished law school in the spring of 1989 and took the bar exam in July. In the waning weeks of summer, my future seemed so bright and so clear. The countdown to the life I imagined had begun.
And then, with a jolt, I was stopped in my tracks. In November, the state bar sent letters out to those who had taken the exam, and, to my utter devastation, I had failed. I couldn’t get my head around it. It was almost too much to bear. My mother had always told me, “Don’t do anything half-assed,” and I had always taken that to heart. I was a hard worker. A perfectionist. Someone who didn’t take things for granted. But there I was, letter in hand, realizing that in studying for the bar, I had put forward the most half-assed performance of my life. ... Fortunately, I still had a job in the district attorney’s office. They were going to keep me on, with clerk duties, and give me space to study to retake the exam in February. I was grateful for that, but it was hard to go into the office, feeling inadequate and incompetent. Just about everyone else who had been hired along with me had passed, and they were going to move on with their training without me. I remember walking by someone’s office and hearing them say to someone else, “But she’s so smart. How could she have not passed?” I felt miserable and embarrassed. I wondered if people thought I was a fraud. But I held my head up and kept going to work every day—and I passed on my second attempt.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: - electric cars of 2,5 Tonnes make bridges in america collapse
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
This administration on the other hand approved $5 billion for energy efficient school buses, a program which has 3 years later resulted in 60 electric or propane buses. Also two years after approving $7.5 billion for electric charging stations, has built 7 charging stations.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: - Nobody in the history of any country ever got more crowd than trump rally
Obama's inauguration was probably the biggest for the US, nothing comes close as far as a political event for a person. But that wasn't a rally exactly. For rallies Obama and Trump have both had events cited around 100k people. As to which one has the record, or someone else entirely, it's hard to research. Trump is definitely in the top 3 and has deserved bragging rights about consistent crowd pulling.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: - With president Trump, you wouldn't have ukraine, or oct7, or Gaza war, or having to pay 9 Dollars per barrel of gas
You caught he said barrel when he should have said gallon also, very good. These aren't lies just because you disagree with them, you can't just lose touch with the basic concept of what a lie is. Your friend says pineapple pizza is delicious you can't just say "Snopes fact checked that it's pants-on-fire."
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: - Democrats caused inflation because of the energy energy, now they do the trump and drilling
Well, the price of energy affects the price of transport which does ripple down the entire supply chain and economy. The part about Democrats causing it would be disputed.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Do you think there's a problem or not? Because your god forbid solutions are at least reasonable except that diapers are probably not the economic barrier to having children, and that childcare is probably expensive because of government already. Basically all your solutions to the problem you sarcastically may or may not think exists are financially related - this is oversimplifying for two reasons: 1) if economic freedom were the only issue, dropping birth rates wouldn't happen in developed places with high economic freedom among middle class, and 2) to the extent economic freedom is the issue, you need enormous tax breaks for children and nuclear families more than just free diapers, and you need trade and economic policies that support domestic industries and jobs.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: Favorite Lies:
- Kambala Harris didn't pass the bar exam
I will just leave this in the words of the book The Truths We Hold (2020) by Kamala Harris: + Show Spoiler +
At the end of my summer internship, I was thrilled to accept a position as deputy district attorney. All I had to do was finish my final year of law school and take the bar exam, and then I’d be able to start my career in the courtroom.
I finished law school in the spring of 1989 and took the bar exam in July. In the waning weeks of summer, my future seemed so bright and so clear. The countdown to the life I imagined had begun.
And then, with a jolt, I was stopped in my tracks. In November, the state bar sent letters out to those who had taken the exam, and, to my utter devastation, I had failed. I couldn’t get my head around it. It was almost too much to bear. My mother had always told me, “Don’t do anything half-assed,” and I had always taken that to heart. I was a hard worker. A perfectionist. Someone who didn’t take things for granted. But there I was, letter in hand, realizing that in studying for the bar, I had put forward the most half-assed performance of my life. ... Fortunately, I still had a job in the district attorney’s office. They were going to keep me on, with clerk duties, and give me space to study to retake the exam in February. I was grateful for that, but it was hard to go into the office, feeling inadequate and incompetent. Just about everyone else who had been hired along with me had passed, and they were going to move on with their training without me. I remember walking by someone’s office and hearing them say to someone else, “But she’s so smart. How could she have not passed?” I felt miserable and embarrassed. I wondered if people thought I was a fraud. But I held my head up and kept going to work every day—and I passed on my second attempt.
The last line of your spoiler refutes the lie.
When Trump, or anyone else, says that Harris didn't pass the bar exam, that is a lie. Plain and simple. She DID pass the bar exam. On her second try.
If Trump, or anyone else, wants to correctly state that it took her two attempts to pass the bar exam, then that would be accurate.
By the way, President FDR and a ton of other people needed more than one try. It's no big deal.
Edit: What is a big deal, however, is lying about Harris not passing the bar. She practiced law after passing the bar. She's not Mike Ross from Suits. She's not a fraud. The presidential candidate who has committed fraud is Donald Trump.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Do you think there's a problem or not? Because your god forbid solutions are at least reasonable except that diapers are probably not the economic barrier to having children, and that childcare is probably expensive because of government already. Basically all your solutions to the problem you sarcastically may or may not think exists are financially related - this is oversimplifying for two reasons: 1) if economic freedom were the only issue, dropping birth rates wouldn't happen in developed places with high economic freedom among middle class, and 2) to the extent economic freedom is the issue, you need enormous tax breaks for children and nuclear families more than just free diapers, and you need trade and economic policies that support domestic industries and jobs.
I am of course aware that financial worries and lack of time (due to work) aren't the only reasons, but they are the major reasons that can be realistically tackled.
This was in contrast with the brilliant incentivization of popping kids for extra votes which is what started this discussion. Point being if you and Vance are losing sleep over this maybe start with the serious issues before suggesting DLC fluff.
On August 09 2024 17:52 KT_Elwood wrote: Favorite Lies:
- Kambala Harris didn't pass the bar exam
I will just leave this in the words of the book The Truths We Hold (2020) by Kamala Harris: + Show Spoiler +
At the end of my summer internship, I was thrilled to accept a position as deputy district attorney. All I had to do was finish my final year of law school and take the bar exam, and then I’d be able to start my career in the courtroom.
I finished law school in the spring of 1989 and took the bar exam in July. In the waning weeks of summer, my future seemed so bright and so clear. The countdown to the life I imagined had begun.
And then, with a jolt, I was stopped in my tracks. In November, the state bar sent letters out to those who had taken the exam, and, to my utter devastation, I had failed. I couldn’t get my head around it. It was almost too much to bear. My mother had always told me, “Don’t do anything half-assed,” and I had always taken that to heart. I was a hard worker. A perfectionist. Someone who didn’t take things for granted. But there I was, letter in hand, realizing that in studying for the bar, I had put forward the most half-assed performance of my life. ... Fortunately, I still had a job in the district attorney’s office. They were going to keep me on, with clerk duties, and give me space to study to retake the exam in February. I was grateful for that, but it was hard to go into the office, feeling inadequate and incompetent. Just about everyone else who had been hired along with me had passed, and they were going to move on with their training without me. I remember walking by someone’s office and hearing them say to someone else, “But she’s so smart. How could she have not passed?” I felt miserable and embarrassed. I wondered if people thought I was a fraud. But I held my head up and kept going to work every day—and I passed on my second attempt.
The last line of your spoiler refutes the lie.
When Trump, or anyone else, says that Harris didn't pass the bar exam, that is a lie. Plain and simple. She DID pass the bar exam. On her second try.
If Trump, or anyone else, wants to correctly state that it took her two attempts to pass the bar exam, then that would be accurate.
By the way, President FDR and a ton of other people needed more than one try. It's no big deal.
It's grasping at straws. And when you set aside oBlade's arcane rant about the dangers that come with being a selfish childless person who wants to destroy America and the planet, he has just been spouting easily debunked lies like this. I'm just going to ignore him.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Do you think there's a problem or not? Because your god forbid solutions are at least reasonable except that diapers are probably not the economic barrier to having children, and that childcare is probably expensive because of government already. Basically all your solutions to the problem you sarcastically may or may not think exists are financially related - this is oversimplifying for two reasons: 1) if economic freedom were the only issue, dropping birth rates wouldn't happen in developed places with high economic freedom among middle class, and 2) to the extent economic freedom is the issue, you need enormous tax breaks for children and nuclear families more than just free diapers, and you need trade and economic policies that support domestic industries and jobs.
I am of course aware that financial worries and lack of time (due to work) aren't the only reasons, but they are the major reasons that can be realistically tackled.
This was in contrast with the brilliant incentivization of popping kids for extra votes which is what started this discussion. Point being if you and Vance are losing sleep over this maybe start with the serious issues before suggesting DLC fluff.
Are you? When you set the limits of your knowledge ahead of time you're not likely to get very far. I've already said Vance's borrowed idea, which he mentioned one time? and is now squatting in your head? is not a feasible policy. Nevertheless, don't miss the forest for the trees - what was the genesis of that idea?
The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.
This means that the drive to family has to come from elsewhere other than government, i.e. from religion, from biology, or from the culture at large. This is not promising when we're at a time when religion is losing vogue, biology is conquered by technology, and the culture is nihilist bullshit and at least a fourth of the country hates itself and thinks it should disappear.
While unrelenting waves of immigrant labor bought by corporate elitists continue to stagnate or plummet real wages, your offer of free diapers amounts to an unrequested menu bug fix in a drastically imbalanced $100 abandonware AAAA title.
On August 10 2024 04:13 NewSunshine wrote: It's grasping at straws. And when you set aside oBlade's arcane rant about the dangers that come with being a selfish childless person who wants to destroy America and the planet, he has just been spouting easily debunked lies like this. I'm just going to ignore him.
Judging by this post, you haven't been reading anyway but I don't think it's fair to call the presumptive Democratic nominee's autobiography "easily debunked lies" even though I'm sure you'd be fair and do the same to The Arts of the Deal.
Although that would be the funniest turn of events if it turned out she lied about having failed the bar just for the plot of her 2020 campaign grift memoir.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Do you think there's a problem or not? Because your god forbid solutions are at least reasonable except that diapers are probably not the economic barrier to having children, and that childcare is probably expensive because of government already. Basically all your solutions to the problem you sarcastically may or may not think exists are financially related - this is oversimplifying for two reasons: 1) if economic freedom were the only issue, dropping birth rates wouldn't happen in developed places with high economic freedom among middle class, and 2) to the extent economic freedom is the issue, you need enormous tax breaks for children and nuclear families more than just free diapers, and you need trade and economic policies that support domestic industries and jobs.
I am of course aware that financial worries and lack of time (due to work) aren't the only reasons, but they are the major reasons that can be realistically tackled.
This was in contrast with the brilliant incentivization of popping kids for extra votes which is what started this discussion. Point being if you and Vance are losing sleep over this maybe start with the serious issues before suggesting DLC fluff.
Are you? When you set the limits of your knowledge ahead of time you're not likely to get very far. I've already said Vance's borrowed idea, which he mentioned one time? and is now squatting in your head? is not a feasible policy. Nevertheless, don't miss the forest for the trees - what was the genesis of that idea?
The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.
This means that the drive to family has to come from elsewhere other than government, i.e. from religion, from biology, or from the culture at large. This is not promising when we're at a time when religion is losing vogue, biology is conquered by technology, and the culture is nihilist bullshit and at least a fourth of the country hates itself and thinks it should disappear.
While unrelenting waves of immigrant labor bought by corporate elitists continue to stagnate or plummet real wages, your offer of free diapers amounts to an unrequested menu bug fix in a drastically imbalanced $100 abandonware AAAA title.
Do you plan on going somewhere with this or are you just venting?
Again, if you're losing sleep over the master race generations of successful people not breeding enough for your liking, instead of seething about the impossibility of dragging the country back to the glorious past of Sunday church and women not having careers, maybe look at reducing the financial anxiety of having children and reducing the time people spend working. Spread some of that machine-produced wealth to your precious families instead of letting Musks and Zucks and Pages hoard it.
You brought up that Northern Europe has fertilty rate issues despite having better childcare benefits and slightly lower working hours and it's true, these aren't full fixes, they're mitigation.
But then you immediately go and try to pin this on immigrants, knowing full well that Japan and South Korea have some of the most restrictive immigration policies and their fertility rates are in even worse shape in no small part due to having some of the worst work-life balance on the planet.
You can't have all 3 of these: - a tiny percentage of people hoarding most wealth - workers grinding all day - workers having the money, time and energy for children
But giving any of these up means betraying your conservative beliefs so you'd rather yell at clouds and nihilists than face the contradiction.
On August 10 2024 02:31 Dan HH wrote: Oh no the master race, sorry, I mean "generations of successful people" are getting smaller. Better incentivize them with vote multipliers, complimentary Fortnite skins, and a gun salute for every 3rd baby, god forbid you subsidize childcare, diapers, maternity/paternity leave and take a more serious look at work-life balance.
Do you think there's a problem or not? Because your god forbid solutions are at least reasonable except that diapers are probably not the economic barrier to having children, and that childcare is probably expensive because of government already. Basically all your solutions to the problem you sarcastically may or may not think exists are financially related - this is oversimplifying for two reasons: 1) if economic freedom were the only issue, dropping birth rates wouldn't happen in developed places with high economic freedom among middle class, and 2) to the extent economic freedom is the issue, you need enormous tax breaks for children and nuclear families more than just free diapers, and you need trade and economic policies that support domestic industries and jobs.
I am of course aware that financial worries and lack of time (due to work) aren't the only reasons, but they are the major reasons that can be realistically tackled.
This was in contrast with the brilliant incentivization of popping kids for extra votes which is what started this discussion. Point being if you and Vance are losing sleep over this maybe start with the serious issues before suggesting DLC fluff.
Are you? When you set the limits of your knowledge ahead of time you're not likely to get very far. I've already said Vance's borrowed idea, which he mentioned one time? and is now squatting in your head? is not a feasible policy. Nevertheless, don't miss the forest for the trees - what was the genesis of that idea?
The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.
This means that the drive to family has to come from elsewhere other than government, i.e. from religion, from biology, or from the culture at large. This is not promising when we're at a time when religion is losing vogue, biology is conquered by technology, and the culture is nihilist bullshit and at least a fourth of the country hates itself and thinks it should disappear.
While unrelenting waves of immigrant labor bought by corporate elitists continue to stagnate or plummet real wages, your offer of free diapers amounts to an unrequested menu bug fix in a drastically imbalanced $100 abandonware AAAA title.
Do you plan on going somewhere with this or are you just venting?
Again, if you're losing sleep over the master race generations of successful people not breeding enough for your liking, instead of seething about the impossibility of dragging the country back to the glorious past of Sunday church and women not having careers, maybe look at reducing the financial anxiety of having children and reducing the time people spend working. Spread some of that machine-produced wealth to your precious families instead of letting Musks and Zucks and Pages hoard it.
You brought up that Northern Europe has fertilty rate issues despite having better childcare benefits and slightly lower working hours and it's true, these aren't full fixes, they're mitigation.
But then you immediately go and try to pin this on immigrants, knowing full well that Japan and South Korea have some of the most restrictive immigration policies and their fertility rates are in even worse shape in no small part due to having some of the worst work-life balance on the planet.
You can't have all 3 of these: - a tiny percentage of people hoarding most wealth - workers grinding all day - workers having the money, time and energy for children
But giving any of these up means betraying your conservative beliefs so you'd rather yell at clouds and nihilists than face the contradiction.
Indeed, well said. Or use ‘nihilist’ as a term in place of ‘values I don’t like’. Folks will suggest seemingly anything outside of capitalism to blame for issues where it’s front and centre. Not that it’s the only issue by any means.
Not that I don’t think oBlade doesn’t make the odd decent point, but they’re all crammed together in such a manner that they become prohibitive to unpack
@oBlade ‘The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.’
How is this different from well, every single political demographic going?
You’ve already alluded to a disconnect between one’s nearest and dearest, and a wider more abstracted view on societal construction further out. That will still exist if you incentivise pumping out a bunch of children.
Parents are just as split on ideological lines as anyone else, in the US context do we really want to see some great red vs blue breeding contest dictating where political power lies?
On August 10 2024 05:31 Dan HH wrote: Again, if you're losing sleep over the master race generations of successful people not breeding enough for your liking, instead of seething about the impossibility of dragging the country back to the glorious past of Sunday church and women not having careers,
What is your problem?
On August 10 2024 05:31 Dan HH wrote: maybe look at reducing the financial anxiety of having children and reducing the time people spend working. Spread some of that machine-produced wealth to your precious families instead of letting Musks and Zucks and Pages hoard it.
Apple has $160b cash on hand, Google $100b, Amazon $85b, Tesla $25b.
Around 13 companies have around $1 trillion of the $2.6 trillion in cash held by the S&P500.
If you take that beautiful pile of cash (just the top companies' trillion) and UBI communist revolution seize it, saying well we paid the taxes that built the roads those companies use and so on (the companies pay taxes too also but we'll skip that inconvenience for now), you could AT MOST give on the order (this means within a multiple of 10) of $10k per household in the US. That's a one time proposition.
Because the value of that cash is only about 3% of the $35 trillion now? national debt. It's not enough to pay off the national debt and then use actual budget surplus, which is nonexistent, on subsidizing families like we would want in a regular (steadily repeating) way. So instead, just grab the cash and distribute it. What would follow is an even worse inflationary period than that followed covid spending, blowing up the housing market, making life unaffordable for large classes of people and putting significant sectors of the country in the economic control of a few corporations, but otherwise degenerating to some kind of collapse.
How many kids did that $10k buy the average household, by the way? You're talking about nationalizing titanic MNCs, so you can show how this is supposed to pan out, right?
On August 10 2024 05:31 Dan HH wrote: You brought up that Northern Europe has fertilty rate issues despite having better childcare benefits and slightly lower working hours and it's true, these aren't full fixes, they're mitigation.
I don't think I've mentioned Northern Europe. That would be a bit cliche for my style.
On August 10 2024 05:31 Dan HH wrote: But then you immediately go and try to pin this on immigrants, knowing full well that Japan and South Korea have some of the most restrictive immigration policies and their fertility rates are in even worse shape in no small part due to having some of the worst work-life balance on the planet.
You were pointing to economic factors. In the US immigration is a part of that and much more significant than your diapers. Economic pressure you allege leads to lowered birth rates causes demand for cheap labor sourced elsewhere which increasingly drives down real wages - leading to a positive feedback loop of further pressure and further demand for outside labor.
Obviously this specific feedback loop doesn't exist in Japan, but you'd be equally laughed out of the room if you entered a conversation about their societal collapse with racist bullshit and then offered free diapers to fix it.
The main lesson to draw is therefore: It can be more than one thing.
On August 10 2024 05:31 Dan HH wrote: You can't have all 3 of these: - a tiny percentage of people hoarding most wealth - workers grinding all day - workers having the money, time and energy for children
But giving any of these up means betraying your conservative beliefs so you'd rather yell at clouds and nihilists than face the contradiction.
Families get a say in politics because anyone of voting age in a family is allowed to vote. People who don't have children get to vote just the same, that's basic democratic equality. However, because they don't have children, those children never get the chance to vote. Families already get increased voting power over non-families, I wasn't under the impression they needed even more of a say.
On August 09 2024 16:53 Jockmcplop wrote: So I'm posting this here instead of in UK politics because it might have an effect on US companies, as well as the US/UK relationship.
Elon Musk has recently taken to having a massive hissy fit aimed at Kier Starmer and the Labour Party in the UK. I suspect Starmer has told him he needs to sort Twitter out after deliberately spread misinformation led to the UK riots last week.
Musk responded, partly, by retweeting false information posted by the head of Britain First, a far right ultranationalist group. That's the owner of Twitter doing that.
The response has been that the Mayor of London and some in the Labour party have spoken out about the 'online safety' bill which is coming into effect in the UK next year. It could seriously effect how Twitter and other social media websites work in this country and make them responsible for misinformation posted on their platform.
Elon Musk is ruining things for everyone, basically.
Ruining/inadvertently improving, I guess it depends what comes down the line.
If we are going to see some regulatory cracking of the whip I imagine it’ll need more than the UK going unilaterally, but if there is a wider push I imagine Musk’s flagrant disregard for the issue will be a big factor
On August 10 2024 06:06 WombaT wrote: @oBlade ‘The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.’
How is this different from well, every single political demographic going?
You’ve already alluded to a disconnect between one’s nearest and dearest, and a wider more abstracted view on societal construction further out. That will still exist if you incentivise pumping out a bunch of children.
Parents are just as split on ideological lines as anyone else, in the US context do we really want to see some great red vs blue breeding contest dictating where political power lies?
Absolutely we don't, 2 pages ago:
On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote: Even in fantasyland this is retarded as we would be prone to political factions based on childmaxxing.
I'll try to unpack better to avoid going in circles like this. My bad.
What you might not think is a possibility, because I didn't at first, is that the interests of families, as a unique intersection of society, are cohesive in a way that override other political alignments when it comes to most things that matter.
The reason this is different than other demographics (I don't know if families can be considered a demographic as such, but either way) - is that families are the fundamental reason everyone has achieved everything they have achieved since our species has been around. They're indispensable to our society and civilization. Why not our countries? And the reason this is important is that it's foundational we understand how to perpetuate a country - we've already ruled out theocracy and others. This thread is usually against authoritarianism. The US is teetering on its language not being a commonality. But family is a uniting issue.
These days we're already entering stages where certain people are just voting free shit for themselves. We can't function in a situation where 51% votes themselves a free ride from the other 49%. There's two cases. One is that families are the ones working, and they're the minority, and they get pressured out of existence by, for brevity's sake, the freeriders, this vicious cycle continues until chaos. The other case is that childless are the ones able to earn all the wealth, because as Dan HH says above, they have the time that they don't spend on child rearing, and the people spending time on child rearing don't have the time to earn the wealth. The problem is raising children expends wealth. The wealthy will never vote themselves to get heavily taxed in order to subsidize the families, even though the families are indispensable to the country because they are where the, for brevity's sake, childless wealthy came from. The scorpion would sink the frog.
On August 10 2024 06:06 WombaT wrote: @oBlade ‘The fact that there is no extra political voice given to families means that the political force of families has no power over the political force of non-families to express their issues, in order that they might organize their country around a government which represents the issues of families.’
How is this different from well, every single political demographic going?
You’ve already alluded to a disconnect between one’s nearest and dearest, and a wider more abstracted view on societal construction further out. That will still exist if you incentivise pumping out a bunch of children.
Parents are just as split on ideological lines as anyone else, in the US context do we really want to see some great red vs blue breeding contest dictating where political power lies?
On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote: Even in fantasyland this is retarded as we would be prone to political factions based on childmaxxing.
I'll try to unpack better to avoid going in circles like this. My bad.
What you might not think is a possibility, because I didn't at first, is that the interests of families, as a unique intersection of society, are cohesive in a way that override other political alignments when it comes to most things that matter.
The reason this is different than other demographics (I don't know if families can be considered a demographic as such, but either way) - is that families are the fundamental reason everyone has achieved everything they have achieved since our species has been around. They're indispensable to our society and civilization. Why not our countries? And the reason this is important is that it's foundational we understand how to perpetuate a country - we've already ruled out theocracy and others. This thread is usually against authoritarianism. The US is teetering on its language not being a commonality. But family is a uniting issue.
These days we're already entering stages where certain people are just voting free shit for themselves. We can't function in a situation where 51% votes themselves a free ride from the other 49%. There's two cases. One is that families are the ones working, and they're the minority, and they get pressured out of existence by, for brevity's sake, the freeriders, this vicious cycle continues until chaos. The other case is that childless are the ones able to earn all the wealth, because as Dan HH says above, they have the time that they don't spend on child rearing, and the people spending time on child rearing don't have the time to earn the wealth. The problem is raising children expends wealth. The wealthy will never vote themselves to get heavily taxed in order to subsidize the families, even though the families are indispensable to the country because they are where the, for brevity's sake, childless wealthy came from. The scorpion would sink the frog.
It’s also my bad to be fair. I mean there are tangents in there that probably would need a separate sub-thread of discussion to properly unpick em, well IMO anyway. Not a criticism particularly, just there were a few interesting hop-off points but they’d merit a full discussion in themselves
I think there’s something in this, equally something going the exact wrong direction. Families are important, but this is going to really laser focus specifically on the nuclear family (I mean it’s unlikely to happen, but hypothetically)
I think one can make a pretty reasonable argument that the combo of how society is structured economically, in many places lead to the supremacy of contained nuclear family units, and a decline in extended families, or indeed local communities and points of contact. You could throw institutions like Churches into this. Despite being a stinkin atheist I do see their value in bringing disparate peoples together.
At least in my culture, you move out and spend much of your young adult years quite isolated from the communities in which you live, and pretty much this just continues.
In essence the nuclear family has supplanted all these other ways of building communities, we all end up living in pockets with our particular family unit. Look of course I’m exaggerating slightly, but broad-brushing I think this will be pretty recognisable.
To me this is essentially just doubling down on the same trends that have lead us to where we are now, and are very myopic in how they’ve come to that conclusion.
So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
EPT
