nyc640

Yes, let's look at "Asia" (as if that's some meaningful grouping in this context when the countries are so different culturally, geographically, and economically).

Since 2005, a huge amount of US manufacturing and resource processing (both large emitters) have been outsourced (largely to Asia, and more specifically China). Our economy doesn't function without these imported emissions, yet they don't count as "US emissions". Even excluding these emissions, the US makes up 4% of the world population and emits 13% of world emissions. Asia makes up 60% of the world's population and emits 52% (more than 3x less per-capita than the US). If you actually consider that the countries in Asia are vastly diverse, you'll find the large majority of these emissions are from China (from said manufacturing and resource processing), and India for example emits far less than its share of the population.

This also completely ignores that the effects of warming are from cumulative emissions (not just point-in-time emissions) because CO2 doesn't just disappear every year. As a share of historical emissions, Europe comes off far worse than Asia per capita, and the US even worse than Europe.

Even despite this, at least China (and the rest of Asia to a lesser extent) is investing in clean energy. China produces > 80% of the world's solar panels and > 70% of the world's lithium batteries. Meanwhile, in the US the administration is doubling down on subsidies for fossil fuels and issuing stop-work orders on renewable energy projects already under construction.

And because I know I have to give this disclaimer these days: I am no apologist for everything else wrong with China and their authoritarian government. But I can't bear this attitude of absolving ourselves of blame for climate change because some other continent has a bigger number than us.

Visa and Mastercard don't, but right now cash more or less does. If the state has a monopoly on digital payments, and can thus mass surveil all digital payments without any scrutiny, the state has a huge incentive to disincentivize or bar the use of cash. Then all it takes is a bad actor to come into power and abuse the system.

> Driving is safer on a per-trip basis.

You can’t make this blanket statement and I would bet on average it’s the opposite still.

- Flying in the US is on average ~750x safer per mile than driving according to 2000-2010 data (it’s likely even larger a difference in the modern era).

- I would venture to guess that most US flights are in the 1000-2000 mile range and most US car trips are easily more than the equivalent 2-3 miles.

- Most fatalities from flying occur during takeoff and landing, so longer flights are actually safer per mile. Relating this back to the thread, the risk of catastrophic failure from your choice (or non-choice) of airframe only really affects the off-ground danger and not the higher danger you face on a taxiway/runway.

- All of these numbers are based purely on fatalities but I’m guessing your definition of “safety” includes being maimed or otherwise seriously injured. You have several orders of magnitude higher chance of being seriously injured in a car crash compared to flying since accidents in aviation are much more likely to end in death.

Some caveats for others who don't want to read the study.

1. This is a study done on rats and is only a single study, so caveat emptor.

2. They administer 250mg/kg/d Aspartame (human recommended max dose is 50mg/kg/d) based on the claim that "Species correction required a five to six times higher dose in rats than humans, as rats metabolize aspartame faster than humans"

3. Even if you assume effects correlate perfectly to humans, a dosage of 50mg/kg/d in the average American 90kg male corresponds to 22.5 12-oz cans of Diet Coke (200 mg Aspartame) per day for 30 days straight (length of the study).

4. There was a group of rats fed Aspartame at those levels for 1 month, then left to recover for 1 month. The sciatic nerve in these rats recovered significantly, and although it appears the recovery was incomplete, they also state that this difference is not statistically significant. There is also no discussion about whether recovery over a time period > 1 month would have resulted in complete recovery.

I don't think they even plot the tag numbers on any scale. It looks from the graph like it's just graphing the "rank" (but actually inverse rank), so they sort the languages by # of tags and give each position an inverse score corresponding to the rank (#1 gets 102 "points", #2 gets 101, #3 gets 100, etc.).

I should have clarified I'm not picking on the Model Y in particular because I think it's a perfectly reasonably sized car and I agree it's much safer than most full-size trucks, it's just surprising how much EVs can weigh. The worrying trend is that moving forward, there are a lot of EVs much bigger than the model Y in the pipeline:

* Kia EV9 (likely ~6,000 lbs)

* Volvo EX90 (likely 6,000+ lbs)

* Rivian R1S (7,000 lbs)

* Electric Chevy Silverado (likely 8,000+ lbs)

* GMC Sierra EV (likely 8,000+ lbs)

If we're talking cars hitting you at 80mph, sure you're probably dead no matter what. But a 9,000 lb car hitting you at 35mph is traveling with the same momentum as a 3,000 lb car going 105mph. You might survive a 3,000 lb car hitting you at 35 mph, you're unlikely to survive the other.

Hah, no kidding. It's undoubtedly a massive feat of engineering, but so are a lot of things that don't belong on our roads.

I'd much rather live with the vast majority of smaller cars and trucks electrifying and letting the 0.1% of people who feel the need to drive a Hummer keep their gas-guzzling cars. At least the old gas models were a "mere" 5,000 lbs and accelerated 0-60 in a much more reasonable 7-8 seconds.

If you're looking for recommendations, one option is the XC40 Recharge, which comes in at 175".

But I agree they are getting so unnecessarily long. Not just in the car length, but also in the wheelbase. The Ioniq 5 (compact SUV / hatchback) has a longer wheel base (118") and thus worse turning radius than a Toyota 4Runner SUV (110"). Makes it a nightmare for city driving & parking.

The US government was also largely responsible for incentivizing the supersizing of American cars with emissions standards based on footprint (road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.), which then had a knock-on effect on consumer demand. So it's certainly possible to incentivize automakers to go the other way, even if you can't change public behavior directly.

I am a little afraid of the long-term safety implications of people driving these massive (literally by mass, not volume) EVs. As if being a pedestrian, biker, or small-car driver wasn't already dangerous enough in the US. For context, a compact SUV EV weighs almost as much as many full-size trucks:

Current Cars

* 2023 Compact Gas SUV (RAV4): 3,370 lbs

* 2023 F-150 V8 Supercab: ~4,500 lbs

* Your typical American short school bus: 10,000 lbs

EVs

* 2023 Tesla Model Y: ~4,500 lbs

* 2023 F-150 Lightning Extended Range: ~6,500 lbs

* 2022 Hummer EV: 9,000 lbs

Except now the 9,000 lb SUV can go 0-60 in 3 seconds.

Not GP, but the Tundra is enormous compared to a Tacoma for someone coming from a car and not used to a full-size. I was also considering a Tundra since the model refresh, but even compared to our current truck (Land Cruiser) the Tundra felt noticeably larger and less maneuverable.

You’re totally right, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard RCV being called more consensus-oriented. Just that it makes it less harmful for third party candidates to participate in elections since they won’t play spoiler in the same way (Ralph Nader). I think the success of RCV just has to do with its relative simplicity compared to other alternative voting methods.

Even leading up to this election, I saw some mainstream coverage of the fact that the election would come down to who finished 3rd. i.e. if Palin got eliminated in the first round, most of her votes would’ve gone to Begich and he probably would’ve won. Doesn’t speak well for RCV that it can come down to such a slim margin, but I still think RCV > FPTP for the third party reason above.