The thing is that wether the ruling party is right or left there are limits to what they can do based on the real world we live in. For example there is a limit to how much they can lower or increase the tax. There is a limit to how much they can save on one thing and invest in another.
Often when a new party takes power, no big real changes are seen as it is not so easy to implement considering the real world. They have to go down some kind of middle path.
Disagree. There are effective strategies for creating more sustainable economies and societies. Affordable housing, education, universal healthcare will make us all happier and healthier.
We know how to fix lots of problems, and money is orthogonal to the issue.
Sentences like "They have to go down..." are really a symptom of a static "there is no alternative" view.
Yes, wire-wrapping is/was so great. Really good quality connections, no accidental connections due to solder ending up at the wrong places, easy to remove or change.
And no solder-iron that risks burning stuff. And no smoke either.
The only draw-back is that it seems to be so expensive and almost non-existant today.
Burning stuff isn't a problem when soldering. It sounds like you need a little equipment upgrade. Get a holder for your soldering iron, and a fume extractor (filtered fan).
The robot could leave the ironer standing on your clothes and walk away; it could leave your empty pan on the stove at max heating; it could take a nice hard grip of your throat for a few minutes.
> No one is admitting it but AI is one of the easiest ways to shift blame.
Similar to what Facebook, Google, Twitter/X, Tiktok etc have been doing for a long time using the platform-excuse.
"We are just a platform. We are not to blame for all this illegal or repugnant content. We do not have resources to remove it."
It’s always funny to me that hating is fine if the person justifies it by some reason, but it’s generally not accepted, when that person doesn’t care about the reason.
“Stop the hate”, but of course only if it’s not me hating. Because that hate is valid and justified.
You only think I’m hurting myself because you don’t understand what having principles means, and that violating them would hurt more than any monetary penalty. Whether it hurts the other or not is completely irrelevant to my decision. But it makes sense that you think in zero-sum terms, people without principles usually do.
Edit: You edited your comment so mine is now irrelevant.
You seem to think that “pragmatic” and “rational” have universal or objective definitions, which is completely untrue. For example, depending on if you have a short term or long term view of a situation could completely change whether an action is considered rational or not, and vice versa, and has absolute nothing to do with any moral framework.
Principles and morality are not the same thing, so no, incorrect. I could have completely amoral principles. Morals are grounded in social consensus, principles are not.
Spend less time trying to be right and more time learning.
Of course, a complete lack of self awareness is also a common principle-free, sociopathic trait.
They say Tesla cars are not better than any other EV nowadays.
They say the Tesla stock is overvalued.
They say the Tesla robot will likely not be a super hit in terms of sales.
I don't see it as hate. It's quite pragmatic views.
On the other hand, one can also question if the £16 cost for the flight makes any sense. A more correct price would be £500. It's about time that the airlines pay the same taxes for fuel as everyone else.
What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet?
Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that?
Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/passenger to make that trip. Hardly necessitating £500.
You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.
Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, but creates more CO2 than all energy one person uses in a year (heating, cooking, going by car to work etc). Dirt cheap and in the blink of an eye.
If you look into the details, in the US, aviation fuel is taxed very low and for international flights not taxed at all.
"Kerosene-based jet fuel used for commercial aviation (transporting persons or property for hire) is taxed at a reduced rate of 4.4 cents per gallon." [0] That is $0.044 per galon.
For cars the tax is between $0.31-$0.74 per gallon depending on state + federal tax of $0.184 so in total somewhere between $0.494-$0.924.
That means aviation fuel is taxed 1/10-1/20 of what car fuel is taxed. So in essence aviation fuel is barely taxed.
For international flights it is tax free:
"The tax code provides statutory exemptions that result in zero or near-zero tax liability for specific fuel uses. Exemptions generally apply to fuel used in foreign international flights, military aircraft, governmental entities, farming, or by nonprofit educational organizations." [0]
> But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared.
I'm guessing it will be already in 20-30 years from now. In 5-10 years from now, no-one will buy an ICE vehicle. Add to those 10 years a lifetime of 10-20 years for the last sold ICE vehicle and you get 20-30 years. So 20-30 years from today there will not be many ICE cars rolling on the streets and most gas stations and other needed infrastructure will be gone as it is not economical to stay in business.
The average car is 12 years old (us, but other countries are similar). so gas stations are likely still common in 20 years. in 10 years new gas stations will be built a lot less often, but nobody will close an existing one that they wouldn't close anyway.
If GP's prediction that no one is buying ICE cars 5-10 years from now, and the average car is 12 years old, by 20 years from now we're down to less than half the current ICE fleet by natural replacement.
But the replacement isn't random. Rather people who drive the most all already replaced their vehicles to minimize costs. Gas stations would, under just natural replacement, be down well below 50% of their former sales.
And that makes it worse. Gas is less conveniently available, and more expensive. Replacement isn't just targeted towards people who drive a lot, but it's well above replacement.
I'd be surprised if there was 10 years between the last mass marketed gas cars being sold and the entire mass market fleet of cars no longer using gas. The infrastructure becomes unprofitable and ceases to exist in a negative feedback loop.
Excetpt there will be a long tail of stations that wouldn't instal pumps today - but since they already have them they will keep selling gas so long as everything passes inspections.
I think a lot of the smaller gas stations will slowly die off and we'll see continued growth of those kinds of fuel stations known for their food adopt EV charging as well and grow to offer food + energy whether that be gas or electric.
Buc-ees these days has tons of rows of EV charging, often both Tesla and Mercedes brands. I imagine we'll see a similar thing with other brands.
It varies. As one station dies that temborarly strengthens the others on the same corner. Ev charging on highways will remain big business, but small rural town that support a few gas stations will support no ev charger because everyone charges at home.
I do largely agree with this. Those small and more remote rural towns are also likely some of the last places to highly electrify due to the particular needs of those kinds of lifestyles. You're far more likely to be towing a horse trailer if you live in such a place, which is something EVs will probably struggle with for a long while.
farmers already own their own gas station on the farm. They have on road diesel forethe trucks, off road diesel for the tractors (no road tax, otherwise the same - DOTs check this so nobody cheat), and gasoline for cars that never go to town (also for lawn mowers). Of course distance from town matters, if you live near town you won't have your own, but the farther town is the more useful your own personal supply is.
I mentionedf a lifetime of 10-20 years for a car. So 20 lifetime and 10 years from now is when the last ICE car is sold that makes 30 years from now there will be basically no ICE cars circulating.
In the US, money talks. I believe EV cars will be much cheaper to produce than ICE cars in 10 years from now. They will also have lower maintenance costs, better performance and lower energy costs. So there will be no reason to buy an ICE car over an EV in 10 years from now.
Often when a new party takes power, no big real changes are seen as it is not so easy to implement considering the real world. They have to go down some kind of middle path.
reply