Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

Peltier stuff today is really inefficient. Like, even in a lab it only gets to 30% efficient.  Really not what you're looking for.

At any rate, laws really shouldn't be dictating technology anyway; they should be dictating outcomes. Only when the method to reach an outcome is egregiously hazardous to society should government be making policy about a particular method or tech.  Generally you don't even need to be specific; if you have a law "don't poison people" you shouldn't need laws "don't poison people with lead. don't poison people with arsenic. don't poison people with chemical X..."  sadly our legislation tends to do the latter instead of the former... makes it super complex and inefficient.

[Lord Shonus]

(wonder why EV sales tanked? The loss of the $7500 tax credit is a big factor... because effectively no manufacturer was eligible for it any more).

False assumption. EV sales hit a record level in Q2 2024, and every manufacturer except Tesla saw a significant boost in sales (meanwhile, ICE sales were down a few percent compared to the same time in 2023. Ford's struggling a bit, primarily because they went all-in on the higher-end market and it is the low-end buyers that seem to be most willing to embrace electric drive.

[McTraveller]

I think EV sales have recovered, but there was a dip right after the tax credit expired.  OEMs dropped their prices after that, too... so in the long run it evened out.

I totally agree that the OEMs making too-large, over-tech-heavy vehicles is not good for either ICE or EVs though.

I like that NHTSA is working on regulations to limit vehicle size. I don't like that NHTSA is mandating more built-in electronics though.

[Duuvian]

Cool, I was being Complainey Smurf after all. I still can't afford the dang things. Go Ford Go! I'ma jump the ol' creek in my E-Scort and put it on the internet! ^{*Claims likely exaggerated.}

[StrawBarrel]

Read the JD Vance Dossier - Ken Klippenstein

This is not the Steele Dossier of 2016, with its golden showers and anti-Trump fanfiction. Unlike the Steele Dossier, which was both fraudulent and discredited, the Vance Dossier is factual and intelligently written. No Jason Bourne style capers appear, and there’s no sleaze. Instead, the Vance Dossier enumerates pretty reasonable liabilities as a then-contender for VP nominee, including:
    • “Vance has been one of the chief obstructionists to U.S. efforts to providing [sic] assistance to Ukraine.”
    • “Vance criticized public health experts and elected officials for supporting Black Lives Matter protests while condemning anti-lockdown [Covid] protests.”
    • “Vance ‘embraced non-interventionism.’”
    • “In 2020, Vance criticized President Trump’s airstrike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, worrying it would continue to bog down America in the Middle East to the advantage of China. Vance suggested that the country had been entangled in wars in the Middle East so ‘financial elites’ could profit from the rise of China.”

[anewaname]

Trump went to the Georgia-Alabama game with MJT for a photo op (where there was noise for him, both cheers and boos). Then at his campaign rally in Pennsylvania, he displays the football game's crowd on the screen and claims they were cheering for him.

Is "stolen crowd size" a thing?

This is reminiscent for his 2016 situation where a crowd of Pink Pussy people were outside a building booing him and Bannon was telling him not to go out there but Trump said "those are my people!" and went out and waved at them while they booed.

[Duuvian]

I think this article makes sense. There is probably more to it, but were it upon these forums it would be a most excellent post on the matter.
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/how-us-foreign-policy-could-produce-better-results-2024-09-30/

An exception is

"He argued that Washington should concentrate in the Middle East on the deterrence and containment strategy that helped win the Cold War against the Soviet Union, rather than pursuing regime change, with often catastrophic consequences."

I think a policy of opposing corrupt regimes through relatively "soft" means rather than bodies in river type strategies would be more effective. It's something the West and in particular America is unofficially very good at, even if governments aren't. It will, however require tolerance within reason rather than a control based society if I may put forth something very complicated in my inelegant way. EDIT: Also, more general advices: if you win, don't replace them with your own corrupt regimes, and also be aware that this is a prime time for shenanigans so it might be better to pick someone good and smart than someone fancy and smart. Or better, see if they work together. Finally, always remember the gilded cage. It is not so bad.

EDIT2: Also
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/drugs-fentanyl-shipping/
Why, it was your cardboard packaging all along! That stuff is everywhere! People carrying it all over, dropping it off in all kinds of locations! No wonder mailpeople started carrying guns for a short period in the '90s! Yes, that happened young people! I can't remember why but basically no one was very cool with it, even the mailpeople which was cool.

[anewaname]

That second Reuters article is excellent. That is a big hole in the borders.

[hector13]

Wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention to the VP debate, but I was somewhat blown away by how nice they were to each other.

Slightly unsettling given that it made what Vance is standing for (and with) seem less nasty, but it was good to see two people with different ideas not making stupid personal attacks.

[Folly]

I found it very refreshing hearing two people debate who were both lucid and coherent.

It was hilarious/depressing how Vance tried to trace literally every problem in the US to illegal immigrants who were exclusively ushered in by Kamala Harris, and disappointing that Walz failed to call him on his bullshit more frequently. And while Vance's plans were all rooted in lies, at least he had plans; Walz' response to every question was simply to reiterate the problem and emote about how badly it needs to be addressed, but not actually provide any actionable policy for doing so.

Still, the debate was a stark contrast to Trump/Biden, and I just hope we don't end up back at that point any time soon.

[Frumple]

... I... think it's pretty literally impossible to go back to a trump/biden debate, at this point? If you've... somehow missed it, which would be incredibly odd considering you were watching a debate involving the VP for an entirely different democratic candidate, joe's not on the ticket anymore :V

Haven't been watching the debate directly (transcript tomorrow, maybe), but the chatter I've been seeing hasn't actually mentioned vance having... basically any plans, though. Just mention of him dodging questions when prompted on such and throwing out non-answers when pressed sufficiently.

There's definitely been mention of Walz fairly directly talking about actionable policy, too. Childcare and housing at a minimum, continuing/expanding policies on that front that have been working previously, iirc?

[Folly]

I meant "back at that point" in a general sense. Biden is gone, hopefully Trump will be gone soon too, after that we just need to avoid nominating any more candidates who are borderline-senile or completely detached from reality(as if voters have any say in the matter).

Vance's policy was to get rid of all the illegal immigrants. Gun problem? All the guns come from illegal immigrants, and they will go away when we get rid of the immigrants. Housing problem? The illegal immigrants are buying all of our houses, and we will have plenty of houses after we get rid of all the immigrants. Abortion? Girls only want abortions because they are being raped by illegal immigrants; there will be no need for abortions after we get rid of all the immigrants!

It's not a very good plan, but at least he knows what he wants to do.

[Rolan7]

He doesn't actually want to get rid of immigrants, though, that would hurt the interests of his corporate backers.  He simply wants his voter base to think he's as racist as they are, and inspire them to perpetual acts of racist violence to keep immigrant workers too scared to seek human rights.

He's a liar, a fascist and a terrorist and his policy towards queer people, and all women, are similar.  Same with Trump.  But neither of them actually want what they say, they only want to terrorize acceptable targets and control everybody.  Fascists rarely tell the truth, even when they're in control.

[martinuzz]

I'd vote for a senile humanitarian with no arms, no legs, no eyes and no ears over a lucid (is he?) psychopath facist like Vance.
Vance is as horrible as Trump, with a big fat extra sauce of nazi.

[Dostoevsky]

I like that NHTSA is working on regulations to limit vehicle size. I don't like that NHTSA is mandating more built-in electronics though.

Worth noting that it is now federal law that NHTSA has to develop standards requiring new cars "to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology." Which the legislative text postulates could involve monitoring driver performance, somehow detect blood-alcohol levels, etc.

(While I am generally 'pro-regulation', this one strikes me as fairly extreme for several reasons.)

We're technically around the deadline for those rules to be done, if I recall, but I haven't heard anything about them being imminent - they've begun the rulemaking process, but it's still a ways off.