No no, OP, you see, how will I transport four fully grown corn-fed american patriots around?

A normal car?

No, I need to transport these four fully grown corn-fed american patriots while also transporting a bunch of material that I can’t have in the cab of my car.

A trailer?

Don’t be ridiculous, it’s too heavy, a normal car couldn’t tow that.

A slightly better car?

No, that’s insane, it’s much too heavy, and besides, I need to transport three metric tons of stuff, all outside of my vehicle, which means I need a trailer and I can’t keep any of it in the back of my normal car.

A beefy cargo van, with a covered cabin, and a divider?

No, see, you simply don’t understand, all my loads need to be uncovered. I’m transporting, uhh, loose gasoline? Not in a barrel, just loose in the bed, and 400 2x4s, and, uhh, gravel. I don’t want a semi, because you need to be licensed for that and I would rather pay more to have a personal vehicle which is capable of all of this at once rather than pay for a delivery. I also need good ground clearance, because I’m going into the unpaved american wilderness with these large uncovered loads. I’m not antisocial, I just need to transport this to my off grid homesteading compound in the middle of nowhere, with my four platonic corn-fed american patriot roommates, or my fifteen sons and daughters which I’ve already pledged to my friends’ other fifteen sons and daughters. How do I pay for all this? It’s all super cheap, I swear, I’m just an honest normal rural farmer, and I work a normal job as a military defense contractor, or running IT for some wing of some megacorporation, or maybe I just have inherited money. Everyone wants to be me, but I’m the only person who’s allowed to use this truck and say it’s totally acceptable because this is a totally legitimate use and I’m just exercising my normal freedoms.

This is all normal, and fine.

Unfortunately I don’t think threads are great for paved roads,

It depends on the type of tread, some are made to run on roads, some really aren’t, or just kind of tear up roads. It’s the same principle as running chains or studs on your tires when you’re not in the winter or not in the mud. If you have rubber pads for contact on your tread, it could probably be better considering the load is spread out much more compared to the relatively small contact patch of a tire. The problem is that you’re gonna outweigh that gain with the larger amount of emissions it’s gonna take you to go anywhere on account of your treads not being as efficient.

The top bike is referred to as the “lady bike”, as you’ve said, but for any external viewers, the top bike is probably a better choice for city bike in general. There’s the point about not having to swing your leg around when mounting and dismounting the bike, true, but the bike also promotes an upright seating position as opposed to a totally horizontal, leaned down, motorcycle like position, which will be more comfortable for long ride periods for most riders, at the cost of aerodynamics. The bottom bike is extreme overkill for most uses, but it’s also the bike you’re going to probably see most often in the US outside of mountain bikes, since nobody tends to commute on bike here.

It’s america, so it’s not impossible

how much garbage do you produce on a daily basis that you need a truck to haul it hoo lee

I’d need a truck to tow it anyways.

Common misconception, but you do not, and a folding trailer hooked up to a car with a tow rating capable of pulling it takes up much less overall space when it’s folded up than the truck will most of the time. You’ll also probably get better gas mileage, which is a bonus, plus better pedestrian safety, less force going into a car crash which collectively makes everyone on the road safer, and makes it safer to crash into stationary objects, decreased roadwear, things of this nature. This sort of trailer setup is done all the time in europe, as another comment concurs.

https://lemmy.world/post/16709798

It’s weirder than that, even

nope, he’s too bald. can’t be havin that

throwing kyle under the bus is a classic Tenacious D bit, though

This is the case with many countries where toilet paper is cheap and shitty and will clog the hundred years old shared plumbing systems which probably drains into the same system as the rainwater drainage. They still have plumbing systems, though, so some form of bidet is still viable. So, wash with your left, eat with your right, as is common in india. Not too big of a problem, I’d say, so long as you have soap and water to wash your hand afterwards and you do a thorough job, and maybe also have a diet where you’re not shitting your brains out every time, and maybe also have a shaved asshole or something, but yeah.

I mean you could always just wipe your ass, leave the TP in the bowl for like 48 hours, and then flush it, but then that kinda seems unsustainable unless everyone has their own toilet and only needs to poop every 48nhours which isn’t gonna be the case in a poor country I bet.

Well yeah, but that’s only one part of fascism. You could say pretty much the same of any war, lots of non-fascist goverments, and hell, you could say we already do that, just look at how the campus protests were treated, the BLM protests, the civil rights protests, the sufferagettes, a personal favorite of mine would be the horrid history of our oppression of labor by siding with companies and enabling the use of pinkertons to gun down crowds, yadda yadda.

No, if america was to be fascist, it would be fascist for historical reasons which already existed, which have been around for a while already. I don’t know whether or not america suddenly having a dictator, would really have too much of an effect on it suddenly becoming fascist, despite the popular consensus that fascism just requires a really racist guy to suddenly be a dictator. I actually don’t think that would factor too much into the definition at all, I think you could pretty easily have a fascist democracy, and you could definitely have a fascist oligarchy.

I’m pretty sure imperial japan was mostly run by a military cabinet which internally needed a certain number of votes, and the emperor was more like a figurehead and religious figure that had a certain amount of sway over the cabinet’s decisions as he was like, a big deal, more than him being a figure of political power. From what I remember, anyways. Me personally, I’d be pretty comfortable calling imperial japan a fascist state, even if it maybe conforms to that definition less well than, say, italy or germany.

Not so much, it would more be along the lines of a standard military coup, which doesn’t necessarily have to originate from a fascist. Those can and do come from all sides of the political spectrum.

I don’t think biden would ever do that, and probably if he did, he’d be the worst president dictator of all time with only the mild upside that he could maybe only do so for the rest of his probably not long lifespan, or for the next couple months as they run another election, which he would probably do since he seems like kind of a sap.

But, if he were replaced by a person I actually liked, or there was someone who’s policy I agreed with in that position, I’d pretty much be fine with it, and I get the feeling that most people would be fine with it too, as in, a majority of the population. The levers of power might freak out though, and that might put a damper on things.

So, obviously he could just [redacted] the supreme court justices he doesn’t like, appoint new ones, and then the only thing congress could do would be to expand the court or whatever, right? but then why couldn’t he also just keep killing people in official acts until he gets a bunch of people that are like “yup, that was official and you don’t need to do anything about it”? I know that’s probably a slippery slope, right and would probably get him a shit ton of public pushback, especially after a certain point, from both conservatives, who predominantly make up the military, and economic power structures, to liberals who would prize decorum and “fair play” above all else (but I repeat myself), and so maybe that leads to a dissolution of society, which maybe leads to an even worse society as the people who control the levers of power are already the most horrible people, but, yadda yadda.

But, I dunno, how many congress people does he have to make go away, before the rest of them start to get the picture and then start to behave in their own self-interest, as they’ve always behaved? How many people do you really have to threaten in a system where the people who climb to the top are only going to be there out of their own extreme self-interest?

too dumb to read

checks out

Most sensible comment in the thread, thread shoulda probably ended here.

Most greens are very wierd. They claim to be against malnutrition and vitamin deficiency, but when it comes to solutions, they are against them(see golden rice). They are also mostly vegans, but when it comes to insulin, they would rather kill lots of pigs instead of scary-scary GMO yeast. Or when it comes to energy production, they rather would choose one with guaranteed dangers(coal has very nasty byproducts of burning) instead of potential.

I think this is probably because they represent a more dangerous and legitimate opposition to the powers that be, and, as a result, tend to be one of the most astroturfed groups on the planet. Couple that with a kind of extremism, where they will oppose golden rice or GMO yeast on the basis of evergreening IP laws (a fair complaint, imo), and then you can kind of see why they keep opposing things that are presented as solutions and keep getting hit with the terminally annoying “well, why don’t you have any solutions, then?” style of criticism.

then you’re just a bot.

I mean to be fair you do make it pretty easy to discredit your entire argument, when you’re just gonna say that anyone calling you out on this very obviously stupid idea is a bot. Like that’s the same thing again.

Maybe I’m a victim of Poe’s law, but I’ve seen “launch nuclear waste into space” get way more repute than it deserves as an idea from people who have no clue about the actual issues with, even just normal aspects to do with energy generation. It’s a shorthand signal that lets me know that someone’s had all their thinking on it done for them by shitty pop science and shitty science journalism. It’s like if someone believes in antivax, or something. I’m probably not going to really think they’re a credible source, after that. This is also bad if the shit they’re saying is itself lacking in external sources which I can rely on outside of them.

I’m also flexing my brain right now because none of the shit you said at all really backs up the idea the nuclear energy is the future. Like, if you think it’s inevitable that more plants collapse and it’s inevitable that nuclear power plants get destroyed by missiles in times of war (also a great idea, on par with disposing of it in space, let me irradiate the exact area I’m trying to capture for miles and miles around), then you wouldn’t want nuclear power. If you believe in that and then you also believe in the overblown problem of nuclear waste, then there’s not really a point, there’s no point at which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

The reason people aren’t going to accept nuclear if they believe it has cons is because like half of those cons are, albeit overblown, catastrophic for life on the planet, and the other half are failures to conceptualize based on economic boogeymen, just the same as with solar power. Political will problems, rather than problems with physical reality or core technologies. But still, problems that conflict with the existence of the idea itself.

You’re not going to convince people to go in on nuclear power, your stated idea, if you only point out it’s flaws, and then also post ridiculous shit.

This, this should be common sense, and I don’t understand why it’s not.

Okay, so, say I need some energy that’s pretty dense in terms of the space that it takes up, say I need a large amount of constant energy draw, and say that I need a form of energy that’s going to be pretty stable and not prone to variation in weather events. I.e. I seek to power a city. This isn’t even really a far-fetched hypothetical, this is a pretty common situation. What energy source seems like the best for that? Basically, we’re looking at hydropower, which generally has long term environmental problems itself, and is contextually dependant, or nuclear.

Solar also makes sense, wind energy also makes sense, for certain use cases. Say I have a very spread out population or I have a place where space is really not at a premium, as is the case with much of america, and america’s startling lack of population density, that might be the case. But then, I kind of worry that said lack of population density in general is kind of it’s own ongoing environmental crisis, and makes things much, much harder than they’d otherwise need to be.

I think the best metaphor for nuclear that I have is the shinkansen. I dunno what solar would be, in this metaphor, maybe bicycles or something. So, the shinkansen, when it was constructed, costed almost double it’s expected cost and took longer then anyone thought it would and everybody fucking hated it, on paper. In practice, everybody loves that shit now, it goes super fast, and even though it should be incredibly dangerous because the trains are super light and have super powerful motors and no crash safety to speak of, they’re pretty well-protected because the safety standards are well in place. It’s something that’s gone from being a kind of, theoretical idiot solution, to being something that actually worked out very well in practice.

If you were to propose a high speed rail corridor in the US, you would probably get the same problems brought up, as you might if you were to plan a nuclear site. Oh, NIMBYs are never gonna let you, it’s too expensive, we lack the generational knowledge to build it, and we can patch everything up with this smaller solution in e-bikes and micromobility anyways. Then people don’t pay attention to that singular, big encompassing solution, and the micromobility gets privatized to shit and ends up as a bunch of shitty electric rental scooters dumped in rivers and a bunch of rideshare apps that destroy taxi business. These issues which we bring up strike me as purely being political issues, rather than real problems. So, we lack generational knowledge, why not import some chinese guys to build some reactors, since they can do it so fast? Or, if we’re not willing to deal with them, south korean?

I’m not saying we can’t also do solar and renewables as well, sure, those also have political issues that we would need to deal with, and I am perfectly willing to deal with them as they come up and as it makes sense. If you actually want a sober analysis, though, we’re going to need to look at all the different use cases and then come up with whichever one actually makes sense, instead of making some blanket statement and then kind of, poo-pooing on everything else as though we can just come up with some kind of one size fits all solution, which is what I view as really being the thing which got us into this mess. Oooh, oil is so energy dense, oooh, plastic is so highly performing and so cheap and we don’t even have to set up any recycling or buyback schemes, oooh, let’s become the richest nation on the planet by controlling the purchasing of oil. We got lulled into a one size fits all solution that looked good at the time and was in hindsight was a large part in perhaps a civilization ending and ecologically costly mistake.

And I say just launch the waste into space

This immediately discards like, everything you’ve said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It’s way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn’t crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.