I’m not trying to alienate anyone, I’m trying to understand why low latency gaming needs for digital nomads is worth the real downsides of providing such a service (scientific, GHG, atmospheric tinkering, etc). I also believe that we should leave a lot more of the earth alone and that nature matters. I’m not trying to put people anywhere, just recognizing there are pros and cons to different living schemes, humans are social creatures, and population of 2 areas don’t warrant large societal investments. I’m similarly against a hypothetical drone sushi delivery service for rural Canadadian boreal forests if that happens to have real downsides too.

Scientists doing science > tech bro nomads cosplaying as explorers but actually just playing fortnite in a van. You’re also ignoring the other downsides besides spectral emissions. Read the article I linked.

The answer to what? If everyone does this, there won’t be a single remote place on earth that isn’t crawling with sprinter vans. It can’t scale, and it doesn’t need to be specifically catered to. You want the wilderness, you get the wilderness. You want low latency Internet, then get to a fiber connection. We don’t need every first world amenity everywhere.

Welp, I guess we’ll all have to suffer the consequences so that Lordkitsuna can game in the middle of nowhere. Truly first world problems.

https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-reentry-ozone-depletion-atmosphere

Shipping is more like 15g CO2/km/metric ton of cargo. No way the whole giant boat emits 10g per km lol, that would be like an order of magnitude less than a Prius per km. But yes, even with shipping, over the lifetime of a car an imported BEV beats a domestic ICE because that initial carbon penalty is like driving let’s say quarter of the way to China once in an ICE.

What do you mean a commercial butcher will need thousands of animals to produce the same amount of meat as a half cow locally? I haven’t heard an argument that a little meat from a bunch of animals is ethically any different than a lot of meat from one animal, just curious.

TOU isn’t the issue, it’s just the rates themselves that are out of control. The reality is electricity costs vary dramatically throughout the day and seasonally, so reflecting that in customer prices is a natural way to shift some load.

You’re right, 50k is the same as 30k, a 5ft tall hood is the same as 2.5ft, 40 mpg is the same as 20 mpg, and getting hit by a pickup is the same as a crosstrek. Look I ride a cargo bike most of the time and am very much fuckcars, but pretending like every since vehicle that isn’t a sedan is equally dangerous and polluting isn’t helpful.

So you’re saying that millions of fragile men are bullied into buying full size trucks and they have no agency whatsoever into their purchase? This is no different than exposing your kids to second hands smoke because you are afraid if you don’t smoke you won’t look cool. I seriously don’t understand why we’re making excuses and coddling these weak egos instead of actually supporting the victims of the violence these people inflict on other road users. I’m more than happy to criticize the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers for failing society as well, but that doesn’t mean the purchasers that make this all possible are innocent. It’s a rotten subculture that needs to be called out at all levels.

There’s a world of difference in pedestrian safety between a RAV4 and a Suburban or F150. Just because they call an e.g. CX30 a crossover doesn’t mean it’s as dangerous as a full size pickup truck. Your affordability argument doesn’t even make any sense - smaller vehicles are cheaper than larger vehicles. If affordability is such an issue why don’t we see more crosstreks? The mental gymnastics to avoid blaming a bunch of fragile dudes for buying ridiculously pickup trucks is absurd.

Americans don’t have the choice not to buy gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs? Gimme a break. I have never bought one, it’s not some kind of one weird trick thing, you just literally don’t fucking buy them and buy something smaller and cheaper instead.

I don’t understand the fixation on “trust” here. They set a soft target of 2030 based on their predictions at the time, now they are revising slightly but have reiterated the main points which is they are fully committed to electrification. This is a small revision, not some clear fraud like FSD. They used words like “plan”, “intend”, and “ambition”, not “promise” in their original press release. I don’t see the case that Volvo can’t be “trusted”, since they never even promised anything. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but holding Volvos feet to the fire on this doesn’t seem fair. If they said they were cancelling EVs entirely and plan to be an ICE only company, sure.

https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030

Not sure where you live, but 8kWh/day is very low for a house. You’d have to have gas heat/hot water and no/minimal AC to get anywhere close to that. Just putting this out there for perspective - almost nobody will get 2 weeks of power out of 90-100 kWh, and if they do it’s usually because they’re burning other fuels. I’m in Colorado in an all electric home and use 3x as much as you. Totally agree that we dont need such bloated EVs though.

The extra votes in PA beyond the magical single winning vote are meaningless too by that logic. And there are paths to victory for both candidates that don’t involve PA, so you don’t really know who got to cast the special winning vote until afterwards. The “swing states” only exist because of states like CA that vote more predictably. The EC is dogshit because of the disproportionate voting power and because the winner takes all at the state level (usually), not because of some post hoc analysis.

Pennsylvania is a large state, a vote there is barely worth more than a vote in California.

https://medium.com/practical-coding/whats-my-vote-worth-3ca2585b5d51

Agreed. The unfortunate conclusion here is they think that many people (particularly voters they feel are critical to this election) don’t actually care about the climate. They’re probably right too. So while the DNC platform is clear on their stance, they don’t see it as a winning issue from a campaign perspective. Frankly that’s not the worst outcome, I care more about action than campaign slogans. They need to win in order to do anything.

My point isn’t to defend the guy, it’s to put some context around the fact that half the Senate is even worse, so this is a disproportionate amount of villification. Let’s say he had an R next to his name, we then have a R majority leader and the whole Senate grinds to a halt. Then will you magically give him a pass because now being an asswipe is fully expected of him? That’s the kid gloves treatment you’re giving to the other 50 GOP senators that are the actual problem.

He’s not the Senate Majority Leader and doesn’t control what comes to a vote. I just don’t see the point of vilifying a centrist when there are 50 other lunatics that vote against progress 100% of the time. Manchin voted for all the judges, infra, chips, IRA, all the budget stuff, etc. Lets focus on the real problem - way too many GOP senators.

Manchin is a moderate that voted with Biden 88% of the time. You’ll be happy he’s not running for reelection and will be replaced with a worse R, so yay I guess? He’s the best you’ll get from WV anytime soon.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/

Might need to use an oil with a lower smoke point than olive.