MudMan

The government isn’t a subscription service or a company.

I can’t deal with Americans’ ultracapitalist perspective on the res publica. It’s so annoying.

OK, I’ll give you one more go around this loop because the self contradiction is too obvious and I want to see how you parse it, then I’m calling it.

So… why did you say “sounds big”?

Here:

What I’m seeing in this thread isn’t a technical objection so much as an emotional one: people who like inhalers don’t like that the impact, when expressed in familiar terms, sounds big.

Why do you think people are mad that the number “sounds big”?

Is the number big or small?

The headline makes it sound big, we both agree on that. A lot of the response is putting it in perspective: actually, 530000 cars is a small part of the new cars sold in one year (about 5%) and a tiny part of the total car pool (about 0.2%). So why does it sound big? If the implied comparison is with car emissions, shouldn’t it sound small?

The reality is the number isn’t big or small, it is some amount. And the study’s big takeaway isn’t that the emissions are big, so much as that, of the multiple models of inhalers one generates signficant emissions and others don’t, so the emissions from one type may be unnecessary.

So why does the headline make the number sound big?

You spend a lot of time setting arbitrary rules for what is or isn’t misleading, and all of that is entirely fallacious bullshit. Misleading means what it means, you don’t set the parameters for what is misleading.

But the interesting part is you accidentally, explicitly explained why the headline is misleading (i.e. it creates an emotional response about the scope of the problem that is disproportionate to its own unit of measurement, presumably to deliberately generate more engagement with the content). That is a technical objection, not to the number being reported but to how its being reported. It’s an objection on the headline writing technique, which is what people are complaining about.

Now, you won’t acknowledge this, because you’re in too deep and arguing with multiple people about this and you’re not going to just go “huh, I guess that’s a thing” and move on with your day, so there’ll be some mental gymnastics about it. But come on, you do get it, right? At this point it’s not that hard and you have implied that you get it already.

I nean… it’s a labelling thing, presumably. They don’t want milk substitutes to be labelled “milk” so they can’t advertise as easily as a milk substitute on supermarket shelves, and presumably the same is true for meat substitutes, except this goes at a glacial pace and they tried and failed in 2020 when it was still relevant and now they’re trying again even though nobody cares about veggie burgers anymore.

You are presuming this sort of arcane manipulation of collective weirdness into multinational legislation follows human logic, and that way lies madness. Best you can do is steer it ever so slightly so it at least does something in the aggregate that stops some anarchocapitalist loon from privatizing oxygen or whatever. It’s been a very weird century.

Not really, it’s more of a farmer’s lobby protecting animal products from vegetarian alternatives.

Which as someone else says below is a bit neutral and doesn’t do much, but hey. They did it to milk.

Guessing it’s some bargaining chip with the industry on the wider legislation they’re passing? This stuff is pretty byzantine. European agricultural industries are constantly on the verge of setting stuff on fire. It’s a full time job to be even vaguely aware of what’s going on with them.

OK, so for a start, it’s one thing for multiple people to disagree with you and another for them to be dogpiling. Given that the original poster is not hostile to the headline, I’d say the reaction is… fairly genuine? I can definitely tell you I’m not particularly emotional about it… you’re just wrong on the technicalities of the headline, so people telling you that isn’t that surprising. I’d argue the framing of the headline is actively seeking that outcome, it’s arguably ragebaiting.

Also, I get that you don’t understand why the headline is problematic, but I’m telling you that’s you not understanding how to make a good headline. I’m trying to explain how framing shapes the message, particularly with a headline and particularly online. This isn’t some esoteric thing, it’s something journalists actually study and train about. This headline is meant to cause a reaction and frame the issue a certain way by providing a misleading comparison. That’s bad form.

The conclusion of the paper being reported on is neutral: inhalers emit some amount of pollutants, most of those emisions are caused by a specific type of inhaler, there’s some incentive to find a less pollutant alternative. All good so far, as often with these problems the study itself is fine.

The headline takes that neutral takeaway and frames it a certain way. I actually would believe that the journalist that messed it up did so because they thought “cars are understandable to most Americans” and didn’t think it through. Mistakes happen. Being less charitable, but likely more realistic, the journalist probably thought framing it in terms of “your asthma is as bad for the environment as road traffic” was a deliberate way of increasing impact by providing an out-of-context statistic to generate more traffic. Either way, if I were an editor here I would have asked for a revision to avoid causing that bit of friction and misinformation.

It’s okay to not get that because… well, the flipside of that being a bit of a technicality is that it’s fine to not be cued in enough to know. But it’s weird to double down on how the undesirable outcome they are causing (people are mad at the framing) is what justifies the mistake in the first place. After a few goes around the loop that just comes across as willfully ignorant.

Also, it’s weird that you are asking how they should have phrased it when my first post already provided alternatives. You keep coming across as not having read the stuff you’re responding to, which doesn’t help with the whole “willfully ignorant” thing.

Yeah, no, it’s not gonna be good.

But neither is Linux on phones.

Again, this is responding to the guy saying he’s willing to go to dumbphones or Linux phones. If he’s that desperate/aggressively ready to use sub-par solutions, degoogled Android IS an option and it will probably be more functional, despite not being good.

This is a very weird post, in that my only recourse is to point you back to the post I already made. Did you only read the first line and posted the rest of it without reading anything else? The argument of the post you’re responding to isn’t about the number of cars being high or low, it’s why reporting the number in relation to the number of cars at all isn’t good practice.

Seriously, go back and treat the previous post as your response. It will do wonders to understanding why its “breaking my brain” (it’s not) and why I’m “dogpiling” (I’m not).

Yeeeah, maybe take your own advice there.

For the record, we’re still not disagreeing, technically. In that “All I did is expand on the other negative side effects of this measure that weren’t mentioned” is 100% “I couldn’t find a shill to argue with, so I had the argument all by my lonesome whether it made sense or not”.

It’s still bad.

I said it because it’s… true? Well, in that this is what they announced anyway. Also, relevant to the post I was responding to.

So how is it downplaying anything? It’s not downplaying it, it’s not exaggerating it, it just… is.

Nobody is arguing with you on this being bad, friend. You just want to be mad at a shill and because you couldn’t find one you’re doing your bit at the first person that said anything other than “Google sucks” even if it was on an unrelated subject.

Don’t do that. That’s a bad thing to do.

Yyyyes?

I mean, as opposed to what? Mainstream Linux phones? The guy is saying that if this goes through he may try dumbphones or Linux phones, I’m saying that degoogled Android may also be able to bypass the problem. How is what I’m saying in conflict with what you responded?

Sorry, I know I’m grumpy, but on this subject it’s been super frustrating the degree to which people just respond to isolated stimuli like a dog seeing a ball go by. Like, zero ability or attempt to grasp context or meaning, just see a word, type the thing they wanted to say regardless of whether it fits. It gets grating after a while.

Honestly, even at the time that entire “benefit of the doubt” garbage read like some combination of active collaboration and outright denial. It’s nuts that Trump rode it to a second term, honestly. As late as the week of the election people were having haughty conversations about the lack of ties between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign and those morons still elected them again because Harris was too weak on Israel or whatever.

I mean, I’d normally not assume an entire culture is incapable of parsing reality, but there are still supposed American leftists going “they’re both the same” on this site right now.

Which reminds me I’m trying to cut off American politics from my media menu as much as possible, so maybe it’s time to mute this stuff and move on with my day, because man, what a group of weirdos.

I believe they confirmed uncertified devices will not have these requirements, so technically degoogled Android should still be fine.

You don’t get Google services, but then again that’s also true of every other alternative.

It’s all jumping the gun for now. We’ll see where this goes.

So there’s nothing new here other than a link to their Q&A video.

And perhaps more importantly a subtle reminder that the Q&A blog post in question includes a link to a Google survey for developers you can freely add feedback to by entering your email.

Following the links instead of reacting to the headline has its perks.

I mean… yeah, but also I’m very well on the record disagreeing with that and calling Trump a fascist since day one. Not that I expect you dig through my online presence to corroborate it.

I’m not American. The presence of fascists in US politics has been a commonly accepted truth in anybody anywhere left of demochristians for half a century. This isn’t “hindsigh”, it’s “I recommend always reading what people say about your country in foreign newspapers”.

And for the record, we got fascists, too. We’re just less shy about calling them that, maybe? Certainly don’t have any delusions about ourselves in terms of being inoculated from fascism at a fundamental level. The idea that Americans would have survived Bush, let alone the overtly fascist Trump without noticing or acknowledging it seems outright bizarre to me, but there you go.

I mean, Stephen Miller isn’t even shy about it. Even if you are the kind of European that would argue Berlusconi wasn’t a fascist and could maaaaaybe entertain Trump is on that same level of “just horny criminal idiot” you surely would have had zero questions after hearing five minutes of Dracula Hitler back in 2016.

What? Everybody thought fascism would come from the inside in the US. Even if you slept through the first Trump term this has been a thing since the 1930s. Surely during the Cold War, and definitely for everybody outside the US itself, but… I mean, were you alive during the whole “war on terror” nonsense?

Had the post-Reagan, post 9-11 US fascists successfully brainwashed even left of centre normies into thinking that was not the case? Were Americans that oblivious?

I mean… this. Supermarkets aren’t that big. If you’re recording where everything is shelved (and that’s a big IF, I doubt it’s worth it), then a good old search will do the trick just fine.

But also, forget even asking. I would assume supermarkets want you to roam around the store looking for things, because… well, that’s how you bump into crap you don’t need and buy it anyway. Seems like a weird lose/lose.

It’s also only 5% of the new cars registered in California alone, by your own data.

And that’s why it’s bad to compare things to cars. Framing is an argument. Comparing something to the equivalent car emissions frames the issue a certain way. By providing an absolute number of cars it makes it seem like it impacts emissions the same as a significant chunk of the car industry (it does not, it is, again by your count, 0.1% of the total).

The headline “Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 530,000 cars each year, study shows” reads very differently to “Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 0.1% of the cars sold each year, study shows”, which in turn doesn’t read the same as “Inhalers emit 2.5 million tons of CO2 each year”. All of which don’t cover the main takeaway from the study, which is that specifically metered dose inhalers are surprisingly pollutant and more research should be done on how to effectively replace them.

I can’t tell you how easily they could switch to low emission inhalers, but I can tell you what a bad headline looks like, and this is one.

Most of that is entirely absurd and not worth getting into. I’m sure a pedantic historian can nitpick it if that’s the way everybody wants to go.

However, let me revisit your accusation of “contradicting my point”. At no stage here have I conflated unarmed protest with peaceful protest. All along I’ve been frustrated by the US mindrot tendency of accepting no nuance between some My Little Pony version of political action and outright armed confrontation. The worldwide protests that show how bonkers the US perception of the issue is were not peaceful, but neither were they an armed confrontation where protestors attempted to use their armed might to deter police forces. They were… you know, political action. Civil unrest. “Civil” being the key word.

The way you and US leftists in general tend to parse stuff like this is nonsense. The fact that mass protests can escalate to the point they went in Nepal, Madagascar or any of the countries in the general “Gen Z spring” movement and prior protest waves disproves the US perspective because a) it has nothing to do with the level of access to weapons, and b) it shows sufficiently commited public action doesn’t have to be either fully nonviolent or an armed insurrection.

Americans look at this as some form ot guarantee their success by either intimidating the other into submission or hoping that the other side will fold immediately. That’s not how this goes. “The cops may charge at us, we should bring guns” is some weird overlap of thinking protestors are entitled to painless victory and that there is no possible pressure beyond violent pressure. It makes no sense to me. And yet, here we are, a bunch of posts down the line.

See, and there it is. Zero to a hundred. It’s either popcorn or civil war, no gradient.

I mean, for one thing Nazi Germany also wasn’t defeated by military cosplayers flashing their gun collection at them, and clearly neither was MAGA America. The first one was defeated by a borderline apocalyptic global war, so… in the grand scheme both the military cosplay and the sternly worded letters are pretty much about just as effective there. We’re still waiting and seeing on the MAGA America part.

But for another, plenty of nonviolent and/or unarmed protest has achieved its goals, historically. From Europe to India to South Africa to the actual United States. The “sternly worded letter” derision is pure action movie fantasy. This month alone the governments of Madagascar and Nepal came down after mass protests. Not a single set of camo pants in sight, just… you know, students organizing on social media and One Piece flags for some reason because this is a weird timeline.

They weren’t even fully nonviolent, either. There were clashes, there was enforcement violence and dozens of people, mostly protestors, were killed in both countries. And still two governments came down and the situations continue to evolve and push for full regime change.

Meanwhile the example I’m being given is some American fascists standing on a street while cops that agree with them wait for them to get sleepy at their military cosplay convention and go home.

I don’t get Americans. I don’t think the way they see the world as a culture makes sense, and I am terrified at how much they export it successfully through places like this. Nepal just held a full-on election over Discord and I still understand how that went down better than middle class America’s political views.

Yeah, no, that’s the point. You look at a barbaric demonstration of a completely broken down society and see something that works. That’s horrifying.

You effectively saw some guy walk into a subway holding his erect, exposed penis in one hand and a machete in the other and went “hey, that guy found an empty seat right away, I think we can all learn a lesson here”.

That’s nuts. It’s weird that you don’t see how nuts that is.