China’s energy grid is about 80% fossil fuels. Assuming their energy mixture remains unchanged (a bad assumption as their coal usage is on the decline) it would take about 65,000 miles for an EV’s carbon output to break even with an equivalent ICE vehicle.

The waste and suffering involved in carbon intensive fuels is ongoing instead of being single event. One benefit of renewable tech is the recyclability of it’s components. Once we’re made the battery it can be recycled and died not require ongoing extractive mining forever.

EVs have a place in a just future and can do some good at this time. Alternatives to cars are still a far more important and uncomplicated solution to our climate problems

Lower Decks was my first star trek show. I’ve been enjoying The Next Generation so far. The first season was pretty bad. The second season was pretty good. The third season has been real good

Mexico is a bad example IMO. The Zapatistas are right there. That’s a pretty significant bit of territory the Mexican State has very little control over.

Because billionaires are morally good, hard working, and smart. If a poor person was all those things they wouldn’t be poor /s

That sort of thing can happen in extreme situations. Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany are the most prominent examples. Both examples involved not having enough stuff. When there aren’t enough necessary goods to buy and people have plenty of money you’re going to get inflation. Using the right combo of subsidies, government run production, purchase quantity limits, reserves, vouchers, and price fixing you can ensure the supply is stable and eliminate inflation even if there’s lots of money.

That’s true. That happens because people are stuck in the narrative of the government needing a balanced budget, just like a household. It also happens because the owners and the corpos use all their money and power to ensure workers pay taxes and thus decrease worker money and power.

Yeah, if the population was educated on MMT the ability to bring corpos to heel would be significantly increased. People arguing for it are fundamentally arguing for a change in how we think about money.

Netanyahu has propped up Hamas for decades in order to separate the West Bank from Gaza. There hasn’t been an election in Gaza for 18 years so nobody there had had the opportunity to choose an alternative anyway. Hamas didn’t even get the majority of votes in that election. Finally, plenty of people who don’t support Hamas, like queer folks and babies, are being indiscriminately murdered by the IDF.

The people in this photo are making a not uncomplicated but ultimately moral stance.

That’s why I stopped using Google a few years ago. I moved to ddg and liked it pretty well. I switched to kagi earlier this year and it’s going pretty well. I still run into some captchas that refuse to let me pass. I usually just turn around at that point

The original definition is a community where private property is not a thing. Private property is when an individual can control the land, tools, and knowledge people need to survive. Private property is factories, not your toothbrush.

Most pro USSR, PRC, or Cuba leftists believe those countries governments controlling all or the vast majority of private property constitutes communism. Some think these countries are socialist and working their way to communism.

Many anti-communist people don’t really understand how these countries work specifically. All their ideas of what communism is are based on how they view the above communist countries.

Finally right wingers will describe California as communist because they have social programs and higher taxes than some states. Basically if the government is intervening in the market by supplying a service or good directly to a citizen that’s communism.

From what I’ve observed most people lie somewhere on this spectrum of definition.

The ones that are successful at enshitification have captive markets. They’re a monopoly, monopsony, or in another kind of inelastic market. https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/

I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America. It rains here a lot. The vast majority of my trips are by bike year round. I tend to find rain jackets and pants cause me to sweat uncomfortably. I usually wear a rain cape. I drape it over my handlebars and it keeps my pants mostly dry and my top completely dry. Once I get where I’m going it’s easy to remove and tuck it into my bag.

If I’m just riding to ride I’ll wear a merino wool base layer and just get wet. The wool stays warm even when I’m soaked

Say her name https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Caruana_Galizia

Maybe, “the blood rushed out of my head” would be a better line? Idk I’m not good at flirting

A lot of construction is exhausting. You stand around the hole and take turns digging. By the end of the day you’re still ready to collapse.

I grew up a Christian. Many apply the label Satanist liberally to biblical scholars and other legitimate criticizers. I honestly don’t think the label does them much harm. The ability to stand as a “religious” legal barrier against Christian Nationalism is served by their apparent distastefulness. If putting the ten commandments in front of the legal building also requires putting a statute of baphomet in front of the building they might think twice.

Bikers and Nazi paraphernalia have a deeper connection than “it looks cool and pisses people off.” The biker movement and aesthetic arose from WW2 veterans. They were traumatized by the war and often felt they had no place in society when they returned. Many joined biker gangs in an attempt to find common community with other vets. Many wore plundered Nazi gear as evidence of their service to society and protest against the shit they dealt with from other citizens.

For sure some were neo Nazis or shit stirrers.

At the same time, it’s worth examining the narrative Satanists apply to the fallen angels. They see the rebellion of the angels as an act of revolution and bid for freedom against a tyrannical force. They don’t believe in a literal god or Satan but that story has appeal when they see an ascendant Christianity in American politics enforcing Christian dogma on the rest of us.

I think there’s more reason and purpose in both contexts than they are usually given credit.

I mean the trouble is most religions have been used to spread peace and war. The problem is not religion, it’s just the tool. The ruling class will pick up another tool of propoganda to convince the oppressed to act outside their best interests. Feeling smug about being unreligous leaves you vulnerable to alternative methods.

Racism, sexism, nationalism, homophobia, and ageism all serve to divide us whether on a religious or “scientific” basis. No matter the justification we must examine what the end goal of all methods of social control is.

The 1% milk is a nice touch

Country is a little vague so I’ll supliment state in it’s place. I’d argue there are communist societies but no communist states. “communist states” may be an oxymoron.

A useful way to think about self described communist states is that they are attempting to build communism. Whether or not their strategies are effective is up for rigorous debate of course.

Communist societies on the other hand have existed since the dawn of humanity. I read an interesting book titled The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. They cover a variety of indigenous groups’ economies and social structures. Some could be described as communism, others were as exploitative or worse than our current society. The San tribes are a modern example of an egalitarian society or maybe more accurately a group of egalitarian societies. I’m also interested in the Zapatistas and what the folks in Northern Syria are doing but I doubt they constitue communism.

Anyway I’m no authority on these things but I hope you found the perspective interesting. The audiobook for the Dawn of Everything is fastinating and a local library might have a copy if you want to check it out.

Any society that is not communism is not free. If your continued existence is dependant on you working for a wage you are not free. Being “free” to sign a contract that removes your rights so you can work and thus eat is not freedom.

A free society does not need to coerce you into doing things that are good for society. You do them because they are fun or fulfilling. In other words, the same reason people work on open source software.