Soleos

EV never has to be recharged... Because it recharges on the way downhill.

"World's largest EV never has to be plugged in" is sufficiently click-baity without being so dumbly self contradicting

I wonder what proportion of it is also due to people fleeing 1 million + average house markets during the pandemic work from home wave. Not saying this about you, but it makes me think it's funny how the common refrain of "Don't like it? Just move" is often uttered by NIMBYs.

Who said AI was gonna put people out of jobs? Look here, a whole new industry of gig work where people can market themselves as "best buyers". Is your Kroger algorithm fucking you over with horrible prices? Not to worry, with a low low subscription fee, you'll have access to our best buyers whose meticulously curated profiles will buy your items for you with guaranteed lowest price every time. They'll even deliver it to your door for a small fee, or upgrade to our premium plus preferred plan for unlimited free deliveries. We also offer a comprehensive algorithm consulting service to help you reshape your algorithm for optimum purchasing power. Be the best buyer your can be ;) /SARCASM

On comment threads, every day.

1. Do I want to put this out into the world?
2. Do I need this in my life right now/is it worth the time?

This reflective exercise has saved me many excessive fixations. And yes, sometimes I do need to make that snarky overly-researched comment that nobody will see.

No. Rent and mortgage are two different things. One is a fee for service and one is a loan.

If your home that you own doubles in market value and you decide to sell it, you pay off the mortgage (loan) and keep the profit (capital gain). If you are renting and the home is sold, you gain nothing.

If your home that you own burns down, you still owe the bank the money you borrowed for purchase (mortgage). If you are renting the home that burned down, you don't owe anybody money. There is to service to pay a fee for anymore.

Like sure, fuck capitalism. But we don't need to misrepresent how these systems work.

Looking at it a different way, that would be like a photographer taking a photo of the sandwich and proclaiming "I'm an artist" or a director telling a chef what to make, telling a cinematographer/camera operator how to shoot it, and an editor how to cut it to create a short film of a sandwich and proclaiming "I'm an artist". Art can be made from a series of creative and purposeful decisions that result in a piece of expression. It might not be good art, it might not be effortful art, it might even be unethically made art, but it's not not-art.

"Don’t we try to categorize everything though"

That sounds like a you problem :P

Enter constructivist relativism

"Lmao no sympathy for anyone who buys expensive shoes"

^this you?

When you mature as a human being, whatever age that may be, you develop kindness through a willingness to understand and empathize with perspectives that conflict with your own. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to accept it for yourself. For many people, clothing is not simply a means of pragmatic function. It's also a source of self-expression, joy, and beauty. Now for me, $600 for a pair of sneakers is exorbitant and ridiculous no matter who designed it. But it's not a product for me. And if someone with the means feels great buying and wearing them, I don't see the harm. I don't usually pay more than I have to for footwear, but I would pay a premium for certain kitchen tools I use all the time if I like the design, enjoy looking at it, and feel good using it. What I do sympathize with and would like to see reduced in harm is the consumerist culture that pressures people with less means into feeling like they have to have such things for fulfillment.

You forgot, corporations are people too. And who are the most important people in the world??

If they set a 10 year goal it may take 20 years to hit 80% of goals, if they set a 20 year goal it'll take 40 years to hit 50%, if they set a 50 year goal...

Nobody thinks this is a realistic goal, but the target gives a concrete number to set a mandate on which actually pragmatic policies, funding projects, and incentives can hang their hat on to keep the ball rolling.

With big infrastructure developments, nobody wants to buy into realistic goals, it's too costly, and there's never enough political will. You set overly ambitious goals so you can get people to buy in and then the project is too big to fail, so you end up paying what it actually costs, and you try to mitigate waste, unanticipated problems, corruption, and poor management along the way.

I would too. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure most places that check even half those boxes still fail in the market. You often have to drag consumers kicking and screaming towards something more equitable and less exploitative, even when they're the ones being exploited.