chroem-

No thank you: I don't care for content that's searching for evidence to support a preconcieved position. There is too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in this space.

I already get enough of their content on HN to recognize dogma when I see it. Quite frankly, it's a circlejerk where everyone else is wrong unless they follow the ST-scene's ideologically-founded prescriptions, and if you post evidence to the contrary you'll often get shouted down.

> That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people!

That's a semantic argument that doesn't address the real problems that skimping on commuter infrastructure can cause. San Francisco and Seattle have both achieved some of the highest housing prices in the nation thanks to chronic underinvestment in highway infrastructure.

You can't conduct commerce on a bike. Anti-car policies are also closely coupled with inflated housing prices, since they effectively reduce the available housing supply by requiring employees to commute from within public transit distance of their job.

Does the California power grid still need to perform load shedding during peak usage, or have they added additional capacity?

So is the argument that the article is trying to make that there's nothing wrong with the current state of affairs?

Are you able to achieve a 10000x efficiency improvement vs natural photosynthesis by using those technologies? If not, the idea is still completely unfeasible.

Yeah, just burn terawatts of fossil fuels to generate light for growing your crops instead of using solar energy and natural photosynthesis.

If you choose to ignore the example I just gave, that's on you, but luckily I can provide additional examples from the last few years:

- bans on legal ownership of certain types of firearms while simultaneously weakening firearms penalties for the primary types of gun violence: gang and drug crimes

- using lawsuits and legal harassment to shut down right leaning personalities, businesses, and institutions

- selective prosecution by activist DAs, depending on political alignment

Shall I list more? And, again, these are supposed to be things that you feel are justified, but the right does not, because that's the purpose of lawfare.

Punishment is in the eye of the beholder: the left and right don't care about the same issues, and that's the principle that makes it possible to hurt your opponent through lawfare without hurting yourself. Eliminating federal protections for abortions annoys the left without hurting the right. Conversely, banning religious services during covid while promoting protest gatherings bothered the right, but not the left. You wouldn't be able to list the lawfare issues that bothered the right, because that's the point. Lawfare is only lawfare to your opponent, not to yourself.

The premise of lawfare is that you enact laws and legal precedents primarily with intent of undermining your opponent, rather than to benefit anyone in particular. The American right just realized that they can do this too.

Or perhaps the takeaway should be that lawfare can invite more lawfare.