Holy fuck why is that so beautiful. You've unlocked something in me I didn't know was there and must pursue now.
Cataphract
joined 1 year ago
Or you're just wrong and crying loudly about it? I don't even know wtf the original point is you were trying to make before this pity party started. "You don’t seem like you are a car enthusiast, so go on any car forum or facebook group and ask about some fake wheels or eBay special turbos." You're a fucking joke. Lots of wasted time explaining nothing at all for scary car scenarios. I don't even want to post this reply but your comments are fucking stupid and misleading. and you end it with a fucking "planned attack" scenario by terrorists or nation states? JFC just make a sane statement and run with it, don't rant on about nothing then get confused when you're downvoted.
My partner still visits reddit on mobile (the communities they want just are not here and they don't like to post), I know when showing me something we've clicked on a post to have to scroll past a "Presented" comment (ad), the communities stickied bot comment, then we finally get to the first real comment only for it to be some highly upvoted joke comment. Sprinkle in bots and native ad's, I seriously don't understand still putting up with it. It's like saying a shopping complex is still a social hot spot like a mall was back in the day.
From a link someone provided above it seems legit.
the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide. The MythBusters’ conclusion: ‘At best, it’s a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars,’ Savage said on the show. ‘At worst, they’re far worse.’
I recognize it's not an official study, but seems to be more concrete than anecdotal evidence and changed my perspective some. The article also quotes a researcher at UC Riverside which makes more sense on what's going on
‘We’ve been working to clean up passenger vehicles since the ‘70s,’ said Kent Johnson, who’s on the research faculty at UC Riverside and is director of its emissions lab, where the MythBusters’ numbers were analyzed. ‘We’ve been putting on catalytic converters and sensors to improve their ability to control emissions. We didn’t start doing that on motorcycles until the 2000s. It just shows you how far we’ve taken passenger vehicles and how difficult it is to do the same thing with motorcycles. First of all, there’s no room. And the incremental cost might double the price of a bike.’
(link)
Have used rice multiple times from old Nokia phones to newer iPhones, it does work and have helped multiple people. Idk what you're imagining but you don't shove the phone into rice and repeatedly shake it. Small Tupperware with a lid, small bed of rice on bottom, set the phone on top and allow to sit in the sun. The warmth turns the moisture into humidity in which the rice will absorb. The phone never even needs to be in contact with the rice with the right setup (same as the desiccant bags method). It's just about getting the excess moisture absorbed, you can even inspect the phone and clean it up before use.
That's a shame, you could've selected the martial arts skill instead from the rat.
Thank you for the vid link, got a new channel subscribed now. Great starting point to show people and dive down the rabbit hole with.
Man, I want to appreciate your attitude but you're just wrong and possibly the worse type of person to be on social media. I'm replying to you (me a commenter), they made a factual statement and you provided false statistics which I replied to. It doesn't matter "Who", unless this is just a competition to you versus "Them". Please run off to things with more purpose like "Threads" lol. Lemmy doesn't need more disinformation or uneducated guesses from bottom feeders who don't care about anything but their imaginary pensions.
Well instead of forming emotional opinions we can try an educated opinion next? You really do yourself a disservice by saying you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why research, post a statistical number, and completely abandon reading anything else in the article for context? Stating a number that you have no idea what it's defining? You're spreading misinformation for some weird "I was right" gotcha comment. The literal next line where you got 56% from,
Percentage of workers participating in a pension plan: 19
This includes all types of employment, for just private it's a measly 11%. State and local government employees bump up all of the stats. Nice little tidbit at the end: "A pension plan is a traditional or hybrid defined benefit plan. In 2022 forty one percent of workers in private-sector pension plans were in plans that were closed to new entrants.
How does this vary from previous years? What are the different types of definitions and actual "benefits" that the employee may see. What are the differences in private and public sector "retirement plans" (or contribution vs defined benefits). I've been reading through the BLS.gov website in regards to all of this and it's one sad fact after another. But sure, put a healthy untrue spin on it to win some internet points while completely missing the context, skewed facts have never caused any harm.
Another video you (and @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected]) might enjoy is Chill Goblin's take on "Oliver Anthony, Welfare, and Blair Mountain". Oliver Anthony is the artist who did "Rich Men North of Richmond" and it's a really great breakdown with historical contexts from the mining union wars to the Reagan Era of "Welfare Queens".
I actually look at it a completely different way. There are so many users optimizing and digging into the core of open source versus proprietary that with so many randoms actions there's less "vulnerable" dark spots available. If we think there's a limitless X amount of vulnerabilities (since we don't know the true ceiling limit), open source will always be "X (vulnerabilities) - 1" compared to proprietary. Completely a math metaphor but gets the point across, It's a path that lessens the impact which we should be striving for over profit/monopoly motives.