![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
My first pass reading the headline has me thinking the dead daughter was running for Congress, and I was very confused.
Why not just launch it directly but background the process so it doesn’t hang up your terminal?
It seems to me what you (and Biden) are saying is that things have progressed to the point where Hamas (and by extension the Palestinian people) are unwilling to reach a peaceful solution.
If that’s the case, what should Israel actually do? What terms should they offer? And what if Hamas rejects those terms? Is there a solution to this problem that actually solves anything?
Did you mean to reply to me? I don’t see how that is relevant.
Like, sure, oil and gas companies are corrupt and doing immoral things to prop up their industry.
But if a coal plant can sell me electricity for 5¢/kwh and the windmill company can sell it to me for 2¢/kwh, I don’t care what immoral stuff they try, the consumer is gonna buy the cheaper option.
Historically fossil fuels have been the cheaper option, and most of the immoral stuff was to avoid bad press. That strategy doesn’t work if you’re the more expensive option. The market will in fact work for the best in that scenario.
Which isn’t to say the free market always makes the “correct” decision. Fossil fuels are a great example, as they have continued to be the primary form of energy for the past 100+yrs, since it was cheap. But it looks like natural market forces are bringing us around to green slowly but surely, and Chase Oliver might be right that this is a problem that will, at this point, largely solve itself.
I mean, I think that’s what the majority of people are advocating for in green circles too, no? “No New Coal” and all that?
I don’t hear much advocacy for tearing down working power plants.
Power plants don’t exactly have an infinite shelf life. They get run down and need to be replaced. Eventually only building green leads to only having green.
Combine that with the ever increasing cost of actually running a coal fire plant. Shipping in hundreds of tons of coal is eventually gonna get way more expensive than operating a solar or wind farm. At that point the business owners will likely tear the plant down of their own volition to replace it with the cheaper option. (Though that will be admittedly a little slower, as you have to amortize in the construction and downtime costs.)
Yeah, I’m in a bluer state than California my guy. Think, like, Maryland or Massachusetts.
I feel pretty safe voting for Chase Oliver, lol.
Not that I’d feel bad voting for him in an Alabama or Mississippi either.
Hoping to flip it someday doesn’t change the fact that when polling suggests that it’s going 90% one way, hoping that maybe you’ll flip it this cycle is delusional.
I mean, I live in a super blue state, but like, if you want me to vote for Trump to try and flip it for him, I guess I can do that?
I like Chase Oliver. I don’t agree with him on all the issues by a long long shot, but I think he seems like a genuine dude, and I understand his positions, even when I disagree with them. And he’s ideologically consistent if nothing else.
I’m in a state where the Electorial College is a hard lock anyway, so I’ll probably vote for him since my vote doesn’t matter otherwise. Just as a protest vote if nothing else.
Plus, if they can get enough of the popular vote they’ll get federal funding in the next election cycle. The Libertarian Party definitely has an extremist wing to it I can’t stand, but there’s something to be said for rewarding them for picking a reasonable human being for a candidate lol.
I mean, I recall seeing a ton of press a while back that the percentage of the Texas power grid that was renewable keeps growing because it’s more economically viable than traditional power plants.
So, like, he may not be wrong. Solar and wind just keep getting cheaper. It’s not like businesses will spend extra money to burn coal, just to spite the environment.
But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.
And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.
And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.
To be fair, if you read the article, it seems like it completely changed her tune, and she’s super supportive of the current policies now.
She’s getting a ton of backlash from her former supporters.
I’m well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?
Maybe someday, but that’s not the point of the tech as it stands. It’s accessibility.
They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.
For context so other people don’t have to dig into it like I did.
This is the Alabama state HoR. Not the National HoR.
This is the Alabama 10th district, which is suburban Huntsville (more PhD’s per capita than any other city in the union).
That said, it’s been pretty 50/50 in past elections, and this was a 66/33 split in the Democrat favor, which is a pretty enormous swing.
So, Alabama’s going to be an interesting watch. I wouldn’t be shocked to see a lot more flips come November.
Well, if he loses, the DA can seize assets. He doesn’t have to voluntarily pay up, lol.
But she didn’t hire him on her own dime. She used her position as DA to have the DA’s office hire him to try the case.
You are absolutely not allowed to hire from a pool of people you know on the government’s dime. If the Department of Energy puts out a contract to build a power plant, the guy in charge of who gets hired has to disclose any conflict of interest, and is 1000% not allowed to award that work to a friend without oversight.
And if they did, and that friend then started giving them expensive gifts, that’s a huge huge no no.
And while you’re right that she does claim that they split the cost of the vacations, she claims that she reimbursed him for her half in cash, and has no receipts to that affect. Which could very well be true, but you must admit looks terrible.
It isn’t that it affects the trial per se, but it looks like corruption, right?
I use my government position to hire my private practice lover for a high profile case, and then they treat me to several expensive vacations?
It’s not that it points to something fishy with the case directly, but when the DA is involved in obvious corruption, I can see bringing it up if your only defense is “this trial is part of a corrupt bid to keep me off the ballot.”
It’s not, but holy cow does it add fuel to that fire if you are in fact engaged in obvious corruption elsewhere.
That DA is making some decisions.
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.