Hacksaw

If this take was true the headline would be the opposite. They're not living their lips, they're trying to not sell any because they want money from expensive ICE maintenance.

Oh another "this solution won't solve the problem so we should stop trying" take.

Electric transit can remove 75%+ of transportation emissions by definition. I never said personal electric vehicles will.

Investment in electric transportation technologies will drive the innovation we need to cut greenhouse emissions in the transportation sector.

Not investing in electric transportation, and sticking with the ICE status quo will NEVER help reduce emissions. A view that discourages investment in electric transportation is regressive because the current default fallback is ICE. If the fallback was electric trains I would agree with you.

No one is morally pressuring you into buying an electric car, people are getting excited that there are finally electric car offerings that meet their needs. If you can't find one, don't buy one. Stop discouraging people from doing something good just because it's not yet perfect.

Technology and infrastructure don't work the same. Look at solar panels and electric batteries. Early adopters got expensive low quality products. But these early adopters drove the demand that is making both of these products dozens of times cheaper and more powerful than they were 2 decades ago.

Investment drives progress for young technologies.

I don't think I said that's an unreasonable concern anywhere. If the EV offering doesn't meet your requirements now, don't get one.

Current EVs meet a lot of people's requirement, so they're getting more popular. They're also getting better, cheaper, charge faster, last longer, have longer range, and weigh less every year. They're literally getting better in every way faster than anyone thought possible thanks to how popular they are.

Hopefully soon there will be an EV that does match your requirement. Maybe there never will be, but you'll probably be in the minority and that's for the best because we need to get ICE passenger vehicles off the road and into niche applications where nothing else works.

That's a different situation than OP, so what I said to him isn't going to work for you.

What a dumb regressive take. Just because you can point out some problems with the solution doesn't mean it's not in the right direction.

Lithium is plentiful on earth. Yes we can't extract it cleanly now, but you know how we get better at that? Higher demand!

Electric cars and batteries are expensive, you know how we fix that? More production so we can leverage economies of scale. More production so that more research investment becomes profitable.

Electric cars can't yet cover all the use cases that ICE can do. That's not actually a problem at all. If we can cover even 75% of all transportation emissions that's a big step.

People having a "hard on for EVs" and paying a little more for a luxury product is exactly what we need to get to the next phase on EVs and to start phasing out ICE for general public transportation. I don't know why it makes you upset, but you can't pretend this isn't part of the solution. You'd have to be blind not to think electric transportation is part of the green future that's going to reduce global warming and keep the earth livable. Sure EVs aren't enough now, but EVs will be and passenger ICE vehicles are NEVER going to be enough EVER.

I get the old house rural life. I wouldn't worry about the lasting 7 years right now. That being said driving a relatively efficient car for a couple decades is definitely environmentally friendly by comparison to getting a new truck every 5 years. Probably not too far from buying a new EV every 7 years once you add the embodied energy.

In a few years things will come around so make sure you've upgraded your electrical panel by then.

Most of those fears aren't completely valid anymore.

1. You can park it outside.
2. winter gets you less mileage but not the end of the world, some of the fastest growing EV markets are cold countries.
3. You might be surprised, a lot of grocery stores and even workplaces have some basic charging capabilities. Plus you can charge at home.
4. If you have an electric dryer you can charge your car overnight, just don't do both together.
5. Batteries will outlast any lease, if you're looking to get 10-15 years out of a car that would be understandable, but if you're leasing it won't be a problem.

I can see your argument that you shouldn't meet strangers in a private place. I mean in real life you would go to a public space if you wanted to meet new people rather than invite strangers into your living room. That wouldn't be safe and people who facilitate that would be pretty irresponsible. That's basically what omegle was doing.

I might be coming around. I think this will have to be very carefully managed to avoid slipping too far. There are already conservatives pushing for mandatory government ID check for viewing adult material online. I could easily see that same narrative pushed here. I think there is a real danger to the kind of censorship that is created when anonymity is removed by mandate from the internet.

I feel this is a big win for her, she obviously suffered a horrible trauma and this website was what facilitated that.

I don't know how this is a win for the internet. This was a website that clearly said "we connect random strangers", and they did, and a fucked up thing happened as an improbable event based on human nature. It doesn't seem to be caused by some fundamental aspect of the way the website works. I don't really know how this could have been avoided. How would the website know who is a pedophile? How would the website know who is a child? I can't think of a way without fundamentally changing user identity on the internet. I'm not sure what this means for anonymous internet interactions.

I love the caption! 6 people holding a seance but they have 22 hands lol

Jokes aside the fact that people put the effort to caption their images for accessibility is awesome!

I'm sorry, I just have a hard time agreeing with you on the definition of progressive taxation here. Sure SOME rich people will pay more than SOME poor people. But even that statement is tenable at best. Certainly MOST rich people will pay less than an average family farm. Most rich people will pay less than an average person who owns a self sufficient rural homestead lot.

It's not as bad as the libertarian "15/15/15 flat tax" that was making the rounds a few years ago, but that's the best that can be said about it.

I like a lot of consequences of the LVT, like that if famously solves the downtown parking lot problem. But I'd never call it progressive. A progressive tax should tax people who own more wealth more than those who own less. If you tax someone who owns a multi million dollar hotel the same as someone who owns an empty lot next door all you're doing is making it so that only the rich can afford lots. Then when they improve the lot to make more money you reward them by effectively taking a smaller percentage of their new found wealth.