https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-30999-3

It does depend somewhat on the specifics but for the vast majority of cases EVs are just better.

They’re still bad mind you, it’s just that ICE vehicles are so much worse.

Edit: This one might be a bit more directly applicable: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

There around 1000 life cycle cost analyses that disprove this idea by now. It takes only a few years of driving electric to pay off the carbon debt from manufacturing, assuming average driving behavior.

Of course, this is complicated because we should be dramatically reducing driving. But for most people it does not make sense to keep a gas car as a daily driver.

Doesn’t seem to work on any of the UI’s I use, strangely.

Sure I’d be happy to assist.

I agree with your points and general philosophy, but I guess I the flaw I was trying to address is that good users can post bad content and vice versa. So moderation strategies that can make decisions based on individual comments might be better than just banning individuals that on average we don’t like.

This would require a totally different approach, and I don’t think your tool necessarily needs to solve every problem, but it’s worth pondering.

I was thinking of taking over [email protected] but since @Quercus wants to take that on, I could also take [email protected]. I do listen to a lot of those as well.

But I still can't figure out how to tag users after a year on here.

Not necessarily, it's just a common tactic in politics to "leak" something to the media to make a positive story seem more credible by making people think it's some hush hush secret.

So it may well be true, but I suspect the messaging is coordinated by the Biden campaign.

Almost everyone.

Aren’t you making the same mistake you criticize here?

This issue is contentious because we’re all scared of Trump and we all know he has a real chance of winning. And the reality is we genuinely don’t know for sure which strategy can defeat him. People who don’t like Biden respond to this fear by calling for Biden to step down, because they genuinely think someone else would have a better shot. People who like Biden are doubling down because they’re afraid of a contentious replacement process or an untested candidate falling flat and they genuinely think Biden is the best option in this context.

But I don’t think there’s any reason to believe any of this stems from a place other than genuine concern for American democracy. Assuming ill intent just creates pointless anger among the left coalition and doesn’t get us any closer to actually defeating Trump.

Very interesting idea. Glad you decided to make it transparent since I don’t think it will work otherwise.

I am not sure I think it will work as intended—in my opinion the state of political discourse on Lemmy is pretty bad right now, but that may reflect the broader state of politics in society more than our particular platform. If we want to create a truly positive space for political discussion, it might require more intervention than banning a small fraction of users. To use myself as an example, I try to be pleasant and constructive but I know I don’t always succeed. An analysis based on the content of comments could also be interesting to try. Or a kind of intermediate status of user, where comments require mod approval. That could be overly dependent on subjective mod opinions though.

Still, I think even if it doesn’t work, this is the type of experiment we need to elevate online discourse beyond the muck we see today.

This strikes me as a pretend leak kind of story.

Yeah I do enjoy him but he’s definitely got a different vibe. Much more satirical.

Blagojevich maybe? I’m not sure exactly what we’re measuring here.

Who, by the way, was pardoned. Want to guess who pardoned him?

.2 mm is pretty darn small. Also, keep in mind that they are mostly transparent.

So all of these answers have some truth to them, but they are also missing a key factor. The heritage foundation exists because they are paid tons of money by billionaires to sit around and come up with ways to strengthen their dominance over society. The left simply doesn’t have many supporters with that level of wealth. While it’s possible to do this on a voluntary basis it’s a lot harder than getting paid to do it.

It’s not just republicans. Voters have been concerned about Biden’s age since 2020 but democratic leaders have been insisting it was fine anyway. The debate was the first time most voters saw Biden speaking at length in a non-scripted manner in a while, and it looked very not fine.

Weird I wonder why that didn’t work when I voted for Hillary.

Yeah you’re right, I probably stated it over-broadly. I’m more talking about the typical prehistoric human diet but there were exceptions.

It will achieve what its proponents wanted, which is forcible removal of the homeless from wealthy neighborhoods. People with power in society will again be protected from any possible discomfort or guilt about their lifestyle, and any impetus to provide programs to help such people will evaporate.

Right, that’s what I mean. Agricultural societies were likely better organized and more populous and so better able to defend and expel rivals from their lands. Foragers were forced into increasingly marginal lands over time, and all forager societies today exist on land that is essentially unsuited for agriculture, which is the only reason they have survived to this day.