The range is the issue, the "suburban and rural retards" probably have more expensive vehicles than NY and San Fran dwellers. But nobody wants a car that can't run on gas unless you live on an Interstate corridor, the 101, etc.
(Not sure why you introduced that slur with scare quotes given that no one used it upthread, nor even suggested anything similar... This sounds a bit much like you're trying to pick a fight.)
Almost no one, even in the US, lives legitimately far from an interstate corridor or other major infrastructure path.
These EVs can absolutely be made to work in the red state exurbs. You'll find plenty of Tesla owners in those regions already. Where EVs tend to hurt most isn't with diffuse exurb commutes (where a 300 mile range does just fine!), but in long distance road trips where you have to charge more frequently and for longer periods than a gas car. And I assure you us cityfolk take just as many road trips as you red staters.
I'd say that the more general issue with rural areas is the increasing complexity of cars and the death of small car dealerships. This area lost 100% of it's dealerships during the real estate crash and I'm not sure that an independent shop can fix a new BMW (or F150).
I'm going to have to go ahead and say "no" to any more connected devices until I can share in the revenue stream that monetizing my behavior and travels generates.
If you expect ad revenues to be shared with you, you'll just end up with more ads or you'll have to pay the advertisers through commissions on the product you buy (cost of advertising is always including in the sold products that were advertised for).
I guess insurance could be cheaper for people who drive defensively. I'd sign up for that.
I imagine a future where people who drive recklessly get their insurance contracts cancelled and have to pay ridiculous premiums to get a company to take them. That's a dystopia I could kinda live with.
To be fair the US is a bigger problem than India, and is only a smaller problem than China by virtue of having a far smaller population. The US is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the world, and per capita is higher than both of those countries.
However, building these technologies may help everyone reduce net CO2 emissions.
USA has close to a double per capita emission of CO2 compared to China. If you're worried about total emissions by a country, then I have a great proposal in which we divide China in 10 countries to effectively make their CO2 emissions completely irrelevant!
The US is absolutely nowhere near India's carbon emissions, nor China's. And none of the famously popular proposals such as Paris even address it.
It's cool, they already serve as our garbage dumps and contain the toxic waste that fuels your iPhone. Just saying the USA isn't anywhere near the peak of the problem.
why would you say things that are so easily disproven with a 30sec google search?
in 2017, the US emitted 5Gt, the EU 3.5, and india 2.5. india's also got a billion more people than the US.
to make matters worse, these are attributional, not consumptive emissions. that is, if a US consumer orders a product made in india, the emissions from the creation of that product are attributed to india, and the emissions from shipping it are attributed to a global shipping counter. even though US demand and US consumption are responsible for those emissions, US emissions don't increase.
As one of the many people who hold that sex work is NOT real work, and is instead deeply exploitative and nasty, I'm glad that this is being done. Sex workers in recent times have taken over Reddit, the sex worker spam is unrelenting. Not sure if it's bot-driven or what, but it's unacceptable.
What a weird perspective. Do you consider performance music or performance artists to also not do real work? Do you think that successful internet sex workers are putting in less than 40 hours a week? I can't speak for them directly, but I would bet successful sex workers are putting in at least that much if not more time than that per week to ensure their business is successful. In fact I would guess (and I'd love to hear from a professional) that they prob burning the candle if they expect to build their business.
Such a weird perspective to have. What is it that makes sex work not work relative to other kinds of creative/ performance based 'work'? I mean, even a greeter at walmart is putting on a kind of show, at a fundamental level, whats the difference? Is it not enough effort in your perspective? Not enough time per unit effort? Is it that they get paid to much? Too little? In your perspective, what qualifies as 'real' work? Is a lecture at a university 'real' work (trading your time and a perspective, only communicated; nothing materially trades hands) not real work? Is a laborer putting up concrete block not real work (trading their body and their time for money)? Is marketing not real work (you don't create anything)? Is management not real work (you don't explicitly 'make' anything?
Even just in asking the question, it makes me consider that you may have a poor definition of what 'work' is if you don't consider modern sex work as 'work'. I'm interested to hear how you define work.
You were more interested in delivering a canned lecture. I don't have to justify myself to such a rude person. Sex work is NOT real work, that's not just an odd perspective, it's the majority opinion.
My explanation eventually leads back to Marxism and destruction of the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency which form the core of Enlightenment Western civilization. This isn't the proper place to critique Marxism. I'm sure everybody feels the chilling effects in their own workplaces and on the Internet, as well. Some things are just not fit to talk about outside certain welcoming spaces, like 4chan.
So what is "real work"? What does it do, or produce, or involve? Is sex work just one of the many things that aren't "real work" to you, or is it just sex work? Is providing a service not real work? do you have to produce a tangible object? Is giving someone a massage real work? Does it become not real when using one's genitals instead of hands or back?
Does a psychotherapist do "real work"? Psychotherapists talk a lot to people about sex. Is that really just telephone sex?
Is the work more or less real if that therapist is allowed to touch you?
What about the two ladies that looked after my Dad, while he was dying? They got him up, washed him, dressed him, and put him to bed. I know they used to smear ointments on his body. Is there really such a clear distinction between care work and sex work?
I'm seeing some pretty shocking prudishness in this thread. Different people live their lives in different ways, and scolding people who are not like you isn't going to change that.
People that think sex is necessarily "dirty" and worthy of disapproval are people with problems. They're entitled to their point of view, but trying to enforce that view through repressive legislation is just mean and intolerant.
> People that think sex is necessarily "dirty" and worthy of disapproval are people with problems.
I absolutely agree. To add, I think a lot of this comes from people that see sex as this magical thing separate from all other human activities. Not that it is dirty, but that it is special and so cannot be sullied by capitalism. So a coal miner risking his health working underground is normal, but a sex worker risking their health is a reprehensible human rights violation. A retail worker being disrespected and demeaned by customers is just part of the job, but a sex worker feeling like their work is demeaning is a destruction of the beautiful spark that is the human spirit. Someone working 3 minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads is just the way it is, but someone selling sex for the same reasons is an unforgivable exploitation.
I’m all for moving towards a society where no one had to debase themselves, risk their health, or feel forced to work just to survive. But as long as we do all have to sing for our supper, I don’t see sex work as existing outside that framework.
This didn't really feel like an explanation or an answer as to why you believe sex work is not "real work". What exactly are the characteristics of real work? Once you've defined those qualities it'll be easier for HN to understand why you believe it falls outside that domain.
As far as sex work being nasty and exploitative I can think of plenty of capitalistic industries that are and have been equally exploitative to their workers. (mining industry, Foxconn, etc).
> My explanation eventually leads back to Marxism and destruction of the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency which form the core of Enlightenment Western civilization
As Marx himself pointed out, it is capitalism which, by reducing the working class which composes the greatest part of society to consumables in the system of production, destroys the family unit and other cornerstones of public order and decency of the society in which the Enlightenment emerged, and the capitalist habit of blaming opponents of capitalism for that is a diversionary tactic.
Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn't exist outside that particular philosophy. Maybe that's why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots. Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.
> Capitalism is entirely a concept within Marxism and doesn’t exist outside that particular philosophy.
The conversion of the means of production from appurtenances to land that was usually held as entailments to independent marketably property held in fee simple (along with land itself being converted from entailments to fee simple ownership) driven by pressure from and to the benefit of the burgeoning mercantile class is, like, a real thing that happened. The idea that capitalism exists only as a concept within Marxism is novel, but not even popular among anti-Marxists.
> Maybe that’s why Marxists have reached total penetration and are having difficulty converting new useful idiots.
Marxism was a reaction to the particular situation in the dominant economies of the West in the late 19th Century, and played a powerful role in shaping the reform of those economies that occurred in the early-mid-20th Century and essentially completely replaced the system that Marxism reacted to. While the dominant system of the developed world is still sometimes called “capitalism” (though others distinguish it as “welfare statism”, “the modern mixed economy” and shares some key characteristics of the earlier system, it is also radically different.
Marxism is part of the background of a lot of modern movements most of whose members wouldn’t describe themselves as Marxist because they are working from a different point and responding to different problems.
> Most people wised up to the re-definition of language and the predominance of neologisms and tuned it all out.
Yeah, I don’t think “re-definition of language and […] neologisms” have ever been a particular problem for Marxists; all systems which give importance to distinctions that have not otherwise been considered import either create new language or use existing language in special ways, and many of them are quite successful.
Oh, for goodness' sake. You are ill-informed. Your own President, as well as his predecessor, have both spoken publicly about the marvels of Capitalism. Are they both Marxists? Was it their marxist indoctrination that made them think Capitalism is a thing?
Everything you buy is from China. If China says it's the new standard, your iPhone or Android or Dell or HP or Playstation or Smart TV will support it.
Perl 6 was allegedly imminent enough in 2007/2008 that I was considering using it for a new project at that time before determining that it wasn't quite there yet. It wasn't until 2019 that Perl 6 officially became Raku and even later that Perl 7 was announced. A lost decade in the development of a language is pretty bad (although not as bad as the lost 25 years for LaTeX3, which has had the advantage of not having any serious competitors).
That only happened after a decade of everyone being told Perl 6 was the next version, and people gave up and stopped paying attention. Since no one is paying attention anymore, recent changes to the plans or names have simply not been noticed by most people, so you need a full-on marketing campaign to get most people to become even aware of Raku. Announcing Perl 7 seems like it would be a good way to do that.
But what he said is true. With all the focus on Perl 6, Perl 5 stagnated for nearly 20, with barely any improvements. Other languages came along and displaced Perl for many jobs.
No, Perl won't disappear any time soon. It still excels at a few things. And like Fortran and COBOL, Perl will also have a long life as a legacy language.
... why do you think Perl 5 stagnated for 20 years ?
There were like 10% performance improvements at each new release, a lot of work was done in modules which was by design Perl 5 having a small core and a lot of the features being implemented in modules ...
What feature exists in other languages (except for CPU types: int, float, char etc.) and does not exist in Perl 5 ?
