When I worked at a computer store (basically the store from viva l dirt league) a lady came in and kept trying to order a jizz of RAM. We had a great time getting her to say it repeatedly.
Without electric VEHICLES* climate change cannot be addressed. Expensive new electric cars are not the solution. Electric public transport, retrofitting old vehicles, making current vehicles last, and people adopting two wheeled electric solutions will be the solution. Cars like Teslas are awful and buying one shouldn’t be considered making a difference.
The things you mentioned should absolutely happen in the areas that have the population density to make these solutions practical. Let’s also remember that this is not 100% of the planet.
I went two wheels! My moto gets excellent fuel economy without the use of exotic metals like a hybrid or EV does. It was also way cheaper to buy than a car. Sometimes my parking is less of an impact, too because I can park in the landscaping islands in some parking lots if it’s busy and I’m sneaky about it. One must be a very diligent and defensive rider and wear protective gear when riding. Having a different perspective about traffic flow helps with safety as well. Going slow for a bit after a stop while everyone else rushes ahead is a great way to keep traffic away from oneself. Also, having all the lights has helped everyone see me. No more cars pulling in front anymore. Don’t be an arse, be extremely vigilant, and respect the machine. These rules have helped me so far. Many motorcyclists don’t do that and have really skewed statistics and perception, I think.
First, motorcycles have a better fuel economy than cars, but they also produce more harmful emissions than a car because their smaller engines burn fuel less completely/efficiently, and there are fewer (if any) laws mandating tailpipe emissions standards for motorcycles.
Second, with all the entitled morons on the road who consider a few seconds of inconvenience more important than your life, who can’t put down their fucking cell phone, check their mirrors or use their turn signals, I consider it only a matter of time until a car accident happens. Motorcyclists lose every time they tangle with cars, and car drivers are a lot less aware of motorcycles, and more likely to get in an accident with them than other cars. Good luck.
Cost, accessibility, and vehicles don’t last forever.
or going two wheels?
If you’re talking about motorcycles, they are basically death traps and many people aren’t comfortable on them. If you’re talking about bicycles, they are basically death traps and people don’t always want to exercise to get where they’re going and rural areas are by definition sparsely populated, bikes would take forever Neither of those offers options for families or bad weather.
Like it or not personal vehicles are a necessity in most of America.
So if rural people aren’t maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you’re being silly. There are cars that when correctly maintained, have kept running for the entire history that cars have existed.
Great to see you have such an informed take on two wheeled vehicles. The issue with two wheels isn’t engineering, it’s public perception, fuelled by dumb takes like yours. Obviously we have to change what people perceive as viable personal transport.
The solution of two wheels in the EV space is quickly obvious. Most car journeys are a single person. You don’t need a 2 ton box to carry one person places.
When solving for the limiting factors of electric drive systems, you need to minimize resistances. Two wheels is less rolling resistance, less weight, and adding an enclosure, less air resistance. Put the rider in a recumbent riding position and place the batteries underneath, you have an incredibly stable, low friction, light, personal EV that maximizes your effective range while being simple, cheap, accessible. The enclosed nature makes the rider as safe as they would be in a car in case of an accident, and you’re as weather resistant too. Obviously families, workmen etc still need 4 wheels but as I said most car journeys are for a single person. These could be made for two people also.
So if rural people aren’t maintaining their vehicles, what are they doing? Obviously they are and you’re being silly.
So what the fuck are you talking about then? Either you’re implying that existing vehicle lifespans should be extended beyond what normal care allows through “maintenance” or it’s irrelevant to the conversation.
I won’t bother quoting the rest of your comment but the same question applies. What are you even talking about? Nobody said anything about engineering hurdles or the difficulties of an electric two wheeled vehicle.
You got so caught up in being “right” you forgot what the discussion was even about. I’ll break it down.
Two. Wheeled. Solutions. Are. Not. Universally. Practical. Quit trying to assume you know what’s best for everyone.
Jesus, I’m not saying they’re universally practical, that’s why I have given a range of options. You’re missing the point that people buy new cars while their old car is perfectly good.
Most cars will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with standard maintenance, which people neglect to do. Retrofitting electric solutions to existing cars would further extend their life, as the low work-life components are all in the drivetrain.
I outlined what a two wheeled electric solution should be because you dismissed the entire sector as death traps, which is wrong and counter productive. A perception we need to overcome when the only economic option for a lot of people’s personal transport will be motorcycles of some description.
If there was a 25% adoption of motorcycles to commute with, traffic congestion could effectively disappear.
I do know what’s best for everyone. Its stopping climate change, removing our reliance of fossil fuels and switching to more economical forms of transport. Rural people do not need to ferry themselves around in a 2 tonne Ford F-150 doing 10 mpg with a v8 to run basic errands. Because you obviously missed it; OBVIOUSLY FAMILIES AND WORKMEN NEED MORE CARRYING CAPACITY. For those situations an electric van or low cc petrol engine could be used. However 60%+ car journeys are single occupancy errands and commuting. There is no excuse for not being on two wheels in that case.
You’re missing the point that people buy new cars while their old car is perfectly good.
Edit: I see now that you are saying people buy new cars to replace a perfectly good old car. This is true, and also not your decision to make for other people. I also don’t see what that has to do with anything beyond new vehicle production, which EVs don’t fix.
Most cars will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with standard maintenance, which people neglect to do.
Irrelevant.
Retrofitting electric solutions to existing cars would further extend their life, as the low work-life components are all in the drivetrain.
Do you know where to get this work done in your town? I don’t. I live in an enormous metropolitan area so the service is almost certainly available, but I wouldn’t even know how to start looking. And what about people in rural areas? You think it’s available there? Or if it is where it can be found? This would be the accessibility I was talking about earlier.
I outlined what a two wheeled electric solution should be because you dismissed the entire sector as death traps, which is wrong and counter productive.
A motorcyclist is 25-30 times more likely to die in a fatal accident. So you’re just wrong about that. And unless you’re an automotive designer your two wheeled electric solutions are just pipe-dreams until someone actually commercializes one.
I feel like I’m coming off as being against EV when I am very much not. In fact I wish that mass transit was actually a practical solution everywhere, but it isn’t. I wish that we could just leave combustions in the past but we aren’t quite there yet.
I know for certain that you’re coming off as an asshole who thinks he has all the answers but clearly you don’t because I don’t see your two-wheeled ev wonder car being advertised.
When people like you show up and start saying things like “the solution to climate change is for everyone else to ride bikes and use technology that doesn’t exist yet”, the only thing you’re really doing is making the rest of the movement look more radical than it has to.
I never said I had all the answers I’m saying these are the areas people should be putting in effort to future proofing transportation. Just because you’re ignorant of things doesn’t make them impossible Sci Fi pipe dreams. Electrom, Velomobiles, Transition One. 3 examples of MANY of commercial enterprises successfully making the technology I’m discussing. We’ve had electric recumbent two wheel transport since at least the 90s. The solution is there; awareness and understanding is what is lacking, as I’ve said it’s an issue of perception and PR with the general public, as you’re elegantly displaying.
People’s buying habits aren’t my decision but they are all of our problems. The reason why it’s relevant is because a Tesla is an incredibly environmentally damaging product to produce, and Smaller, lighter EVs that make more use of less batteries are a more environmentally efficient prospect.
People not maintaining what they have is not irrelevant it’s one facet of this massive issue of waste and environmental damage in transport. Maximizing the work-life of their vehicles is one of many things people can be doing to help environmentally.
A motorcyclist is more likely to die on a traditional motorcycle, which while better than cars environmentally, isn’t what I’m talking about, as I’ve said, these solutions are enclosed the crash protection is vastly superior than a normal motorcycle; two wheel transport aren’t just motorcycles. I would also say the chances of a car driver dying in a fatal accident are incredibly low, and even 25 times that is still incredibly unlikely. And also the cause of motorcycle accidents are in a massive majority the fault of car drivers. Less cars, less accidents, less pollution, less traffic.
Climate Change is a serious issue. We genuinely are fucked if we don’t make massive changes. The fact you think what I’m suggesting is radical is wild. Sadly we have all of these solutions that people could be adopting, thereby limiting ICE usage massively, but no one cares. We’re fucked.
Fun fact: In the UK there is no ability (DVSA/DVLA[requirement to legally taxing/insuring a car]) for legally driving a converted ICE to Electric car. This is due to the MOT test having a test for CO2 and if the test returns null or “out of bounds” the car fails it’s MOT and therefore is illegal to drive.
Yep, it’s a general theme with governments and companies not enabling the repairability and freedom we need for EVs. Just one look at the repairability of a Tesla should show people it’s not the answer, yet. There is still hope on the continent with companies like Transition One in France forging ahead with conversion kits. Hopefully the UK follows suit once these are viable products being sold. I would recommend a letter to your MP if you haven’t already I suppose.
FWIW; this is not a practical problem, it’s a political one. Conversion kits don’t get a pass/by from the law, they are subject to the same laws just like home brew conversions.
Afraid you’re wasting your breath. OP appears to be a member of fuckcars, which feels like it’s coming from a good place but is mostly just short-sighted and infantile. I live in DFW and not having a vehicle is not an option, but these folk would classify me alongside the devil because I dare to use a combustion engine. If I could realistically use an electric vehicle I would.
I’m sure that in OPs mind everyone should just abandon their cars tomorrow and that will immediately solve all of the climate change as if private vehicle owners are the ones actually causing the problem in the first place.
You should keep an eye on Edison Motors, they’re developing practical hybrid heavy vocational trucks & have a side project for a pickup retrofit kit that I’m waiting for.
Fuckcars is made up of people with little life experience who think they have all the answers, and people who fetishize city living and think it’s normal or healthy for humans to live at a density like NYC (and fuck you if you disagree). They’re oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness, and handwaving away the problems.
I’ve lived in places far less dense than NYC with robust public transit far better than NYC. Owning a car would’ve just been a burden 99% of the time. And it was certainly healthier than living in car-centric suburbs, both physically and mentally. Not everywhere is America where we can’t fathom anything but cars and McMansions
What’s far less dense with better public transit than NYC? The most popular example of no-car city design I see is Amsterdam, which is 1/2 the density of NYC, but still 15x the density of where I’m from (not even close to a rural area). I think robust public transit at 1/15th the density of Amsterdam and 1/30th the density of NYC is a pipe dream.
In these lower density places, maybe you luck out and you’re walking or biking distance to work. If you change jobs do you have to move instead of hopping in the car and commuting a bit further? In circumstances like these, transit can’t possibly serve every origin and destination efficiently, and personal vehicles can offer efficient point to point.
I lived in Heidelberg, with a population density of 1500/km², so about 4x the density of your place. There was a robust bus system, tram system, commuter train system, and then of course Germany’s regional and intercity train systems. There were also plenty of public rental bikes and bike lanes. I could go anywhere in or around the city quite easily and quickly, as well as any other city in Germany (or the EU, for that matter). Trams had a frequency of about 10-15 minutes, rapid buses about the same, the bus stops by my house had a frequency of 20 minutes. There were suburbs up the river which also had phenomenal bus and commuter train access directly to the city and elsewhere.
The American town I live in now has a density of 900/km² and about ⅓ the population of Heidelberg. We just got our first bus last year and it runs in a loop once per hour. The train station was demolished decades ago.
I also lived in Sejong, with a population density of about 750/km², so about 2x your place. In addition to dedicated bike lanes on every major road and very large sidewalks, there was a extensive bus system and a very efficient rapid bus loop system as well. The rapid buses had a frequency of about 10 minutes and could take me to the other side of the city in about 15 minutes. The smaller buses also had a high frequency of about 15-20 minutes, depending on the bus. The train station in sejong is still under construction but it was a ~30 min rapid bus line ride to either of two train stations in neighboring cities to take me anywhere in South Korea.
Some of the other Korean cities with densities somewhat higher than Sejong, like Daejon which is about 2700/km², have really incredible subway/metro systems too.
In Germany, the nearby cities of Stuttgart (3000/km²) and Frankfurt (3100/km²) also had great subway systems, in addition to the buses, trams, bike lanes, and commuter trains.
The commuter and regional trains serve also the purpose of connecting much smaller towns and villages, which are far less dense but still served by good bus systems and such.
I do agree that America has sprawled so much as to make the transition more difficult. But great density-appropriate public transit is possible at low density.
This post is fucking idiotic. Without electric cars climate change CANNOT be addressed
I mean, that’s not true at all… America would just have to build actual public transportation. We just attach a feeling of personal freedom to cars that’s so prevalent that Americans cannot fathom the idea of expanding public transportation.
And yes, of course public transportation isn’t going to reach everyone in rural America. However, if a significant portion of the urban/suburban population switched to electric rail, it would curb climate change faster than everyone slowly replacing their personal vehicles.
It’s not just a matter of building the rail, it’s also redesigning the urban sprawl. That’s a LOT of new construction of buildings needed, too. That comes with new utilities, etc. And cement is a huge carbon source.
There is a time scale over which that’s more carbon efficient than replacing all personal vehicles and their replacement lifecycles, but it’s very unclear if that’s actually faster with regards to climate change timelines.
I’m just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I’m under no illusion they’ll go away any time soon. We have to make progress in many forms and car reduction is one of them
We’re in the crawl phase. Let’s leverage less-harmful technology to reduce our impact on the environment while simultaneously investing in ideal solutions like public transportion and walkable/bikeable cities. It will be a slow transition and we need to embrace every step in the process.
I’m just being realistic. I actually hate cars but I’m under no illusion they’ll go away any time soon.
I honestly don’t know which idea is honestly more “realistic”. I think either halting climate change in time is probably a long shot, but which is actually feasible…
The largest problem with electric cars is that we more than likely aren’t going to be able to force people to stop driving with gas. Which means we will still be reliant on a fossil fuel industry, and when there is demand, there will be supply. Unless we quickly curb demand to a significant degree, fossil fuel companies will do anything they can to keep those cars on the road.
The second largest problem with EVs is that they have a much larger production carbon footprint than traditional vehicles. This gap in the carbon footprint is closed within a year or two of driving, which normally would be fine… but with the time constraints of climate change, that initial production carbon is a pretty big hurdle.
And I agree that we have to make progress in several forms, but some of those forms are just going to be a fossil fuel company’s attempt to preserve their profit model disguised with a green sashe.
I’m not sure what you think that proves. World population has grown and people eat more animal products than ever, which is part of my argument that we should be cutting back on animal products and eat more humane and more efficient food sources.
If everyone went vegan, do you think the number of animals killed would stay the same? This is like a blend of “voting doesn’t matter” and “abolitionists have no effect since the slave population has grown every year.”
Pat Finnerty on YouTube does a great series called What Makes This Song Stink. It’s definitely not for everyone, as he doesn’t give a shit about YouTube algorithms and keeping videos to an ideal length. But has a recent hour long video on Jason Aldean’s Try That in a Small Town. The video (Pat Finnerty’s not Jason Aldean’s) is phenomenal.
He hooked me so hard by showing how Ohio would sound over it, I wanted to laugh but I was also flabbergasted and so just noise and head shaking and disbelief is what I mustered.
But yea, I’ll go back and watch the old ones. Thanks.
Another video you (and @FunderPants, @Grayox, @Holyhandgrenade) might enjoy is Chill Goblin’s take on “Oliver Anthony, Welfare, and Blair Mountain”. Oliver Anthony is the artist who did “Rich Men North of Richmond” and it’s a really great breakdown with historical contexts from the mining union wars to the Reagan Era of “Welfare Queens”.
Electric cars don’t solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they’re certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn’t possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it’s horribly inefficient).
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.
None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.
People aren’t just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn’t viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That’s why this post is stupid, it’s acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.
But by selling there old car more people can affort to buy a newer cars and fade out old cars wich overall is going to decrease carbon emissions because newer cars are on average more fuel efficent.
Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I’d love to hear it
After 8 years you’re getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not “just because”. But even in your example, it’s a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.
I can’t even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don’t start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don’t understand why people here don’t realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I’m not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that’s important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus
People don’t run into issues for 11-14 years? You’re assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You’re entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.
I’m assuming nothing now other than this sub must be overrun by car salespeople. You all are insufferable. The average age of a used car being bought is 6years old, not 11-14. Also, no one is taking issue with the carbon footprint of buying used cars. That’s not the point of this post. Buying and maintaining a used car is a wonderfully conservative practice. People aren’t buying used electric cars (by and large). The point here the OP is making is that it’s better from a carbon footprint standpoint to not trade up to an electric (typically new car) than to keep an existing ICE car at least until it nears end of life. That is a factually accurate statement that all of you car sales people apparently are upset about.
This is often repeated and very damaging misinformation. An EV powered purely by coal is significantly better for the environment than an ICE car over its lifetime. This is because coal fired power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines due to economies of scale, even after taking into account transmission losses.
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date. But this is good to know. Definitely a step in the right direction even if more diversified public transportation options are better
It’s more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation. A lot of the times I see people trying to back this one up, it’s with Hawkins et al.'s Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles paper. A 2012 study that analyzes emissions based on manufacturing and energy production capabilities of the time doesn’t hold up well over a decade later.
You would think that would be obvious, but ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?
My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.
I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.
I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.
Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.
Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:
I’m huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.
As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I’ll push them into getting EVs if what they’re doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to “is this for roadtrips”, because then maybe hybrid is better.
Which is why again I say it’s a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.
China is unmovable by vehicle at all such that their failure of a mass transit system is trying busses on stilts.
Japan is tiny. I mean very tiny minuscule area of land.
Most of EU has no such thing. You are assuming it EU is Germany, France, and Belgium. PS, all the actual Countries (which EU isn't one) in the EU are tiny.
Size is a factor in cost and that is the real reason most Countries have no such thing as viable mass transit for the majority of their citizens. Paving sold cars and cars made corporations lots of money. Mass transit does the opposite and is thus objected to by same corpos.
China has a working HSR system connecting all their major cities. The fact that their population scale is so massive means they also try weird shit to get what they can.
Japan is very narrow but it’s also very long. The actual amount of miles a train much cover from one end to the other is very large.
Yes the EU is not one country (though it is a polity). That should make it harder, not easier to cover it with rail, and yet there’s rail lines connecting all the major cities crossing national borders. Does the “size” counter reset once you cross a line on the map?
It’s not the size, it’s the political organization. You even hint at this when describing how we paved America: the political and economic configuration was aligned to make it happen despite the massive cost. The USA was crisscrossed by passenger rail and street cars, and still is for cargo. We just took a different path later, but it doesn’t actually have to be that way.
Absolutely doesn’t, and we should push them to bring back rail, but that will take a very very long time to build. Even major cities are missing rail links, they would need huge infrastructure to add it there, and then smaller links for the teeny tiny towns. We should do both - invest in good public transit, and also embrace stopgap measures.
We can both say “EVs are the solution for now” and also do things like “No new lanes will be added unless rail is considered first”
Public transit is cheaper and more accessable. It would be quite easy to make it profitable. Private transportation is more expensive both on the production side and infrastructure side. The auto industry did a lot of scummy shit in order to make it profitable. In the US, they bought up and shut down just about every public transport corp in order to force the public to buy cars and force the state to build infrastructure.
They say, as I know people in the midwest who commute 1.5 hours each way to the city for their job and then turn around and drive home. I have a friend who lives in a town of no shit, 400 people.
There’s no bus that goes there. It’s 30 miles from the nearest “city” of 15,000, and he works another 20 miles past that.
You can survive without cars
Sure, they’ll just not eat, not work, and not do anything. Dude I’m all for urbanization and adding mass transit, but you’re going to be hard pressed to add rail routes or even bus routes to not just that one town of 400, but all the other thousands of tiny towns. Hell even the town of 15,000 doesn’t have a rail route. Hell even the state capital is missing a rail route. Let alone commuter options.
I’m not saying America is an exception, I’m saying you’re naive for thinking your one opinion will work for everyone, and that the problem is more nuanced then you understand.
That’s why I brought up Cali HSR. It’s been over a decade of planning and building that, and that’s connecting two of the largest cities in the country, and you’re just casually saying “Just build it everywhere”. Like yes we want that too, but the realities of building that would be centuries of work.
If you’re aiming for a huge change anyway (buying new EVs for everyone, installing chargers everywhere) why not consider the other one - adding more transit and bike lanes? It’s not an easy shift either way - but one involves various unknowns and unforeseen difficulties. The other has been put to use across the world already.
Because we have people spread out all across a massive landscape in the USA, it’s not ever likely to be feasible to build public transport to reach everyone. No, we don’t all live in the big cities and we never will.
Personal transportation will always be a necessity for Americans, except for those who choose to live inside large cities that do have public transport. EVs with Sodium ion batteries would vastly improve our emissions and eliminate the problem with sourcing Lithium batteries’ minerals.
What do you mean “not ever likely to build public transport”? That is literally how the West was first settled, and the reason many of those towns exist. We already had train networks, and abandoned them only because of car trendiness.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns - even if they exist a long way from cities, they’re still generally walkable (because of the low traffic volume in the area). Any place where each individual home and store has been spread out such that literally every trip for any purpose necessitates private transport is just forcing its own worst-case scenario and would benefit from a redesign either way. As long as there’s any kind of civic center with a few stores, it becomes reasonably practical to at least have a bus route.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns
Haha, I’ve lived that life for about 80% of 4 decades already in several small towns and out in the woods far from town. Public transport is mostly non-existent, and people live all over the place where there is nothing but a narrow winding road with no sidewalks. It’s generally only the city center where the buildings like courthouses and banks are located that are walkable in the average American small town. Basically there’s no option but cars for these small towns.
When you go on about how they should all be built up into an urban paradise with sidewalks and buses and trains going everywhere, it overlooks the fact that we already don’t keep up the infrastructure that we have well enough. There is no money to just rebuild everything into the version you imagine would be ideal.
That sounds like the most backward design even of a rural area. This is not a dichotomy between cities and towns complete with pedestrian bridges and electric crosswalks, it’s also about planning that amounts past random, long-distance scattering of destinations.
I’m trying to even understand how you claim those towns become unwalkable, since that’s not due to lack of development - it’s a matter of overdevelopment of roads with wide lanes. A small grid of old buildings with dirt between them is perfectly walkable. If someone built those stores 4 miles apart from each other all in different directions, then even for car users that’s a design failure.
If you insist there is no money to develop anything in those towns or re-plan the environment, that’s an unfortunate diagnosis for the area, but that also means EVs won’t work there because of lack of charging infrastructure, and the town will die out since nothing is being maintained. Let’s keep the discussion to just places that at least have enough money to reconsider their 8-lane stroads.
That’s unfortunately the truth in most American rural towns. Take my town and their grocery store. My town back in the day apparently had a great town square, vibrant, very walkable. Over the years it’s become more delapidated due to neglect, and businesses don’t want to open there. Our grocery store left the downtown area so they could build a new one on the outskirts of town. People love it, it’s bright, big, huge even, and of course, plenty of parking. So they think it’s an absolute win. Except it’s not. It was the town’s only grocery store and now rather than having a walkable store from all the houses in town, everyone now gets in their car and drives 2 miles out of town, parks in the massive parking lot, and walks inside.
This is how commercial has all happened in small towns. It’s left the downtown which you’re right, would be very walkable, and has moved outside of town. On top of that, it’s extremely anti-pedestrian, so even if there would be a bus added eventually, it would still require walking 1/4 mile from the bus stop across a parking lot just to get to the entrance of one of the stores.
The entire thing is ridiculous, and you’re right for not understanding it. The only way it makes sense is if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that “it’s better that I get to get into my car, drive 2 miles, and pick up my groceries, put them all in my car, drive 2 miles home, then bring them all inside”
I will say EVs do work there, and it’s not because of charging infrastructure, but because everyone forgets that you can charge your car at home. Most residents are single family homes with 2, 3, hell even 4 car garages. Each space could have a charger, and every home could have solar added. Places like grocery stores can add chargers. In that small town we (for some reason) had 6 gas stations for our 15k people. They could be mandated to add some chargers, but even then, if everyone charged at home it’s like leaving your house on a full tank every day. Very few people seem to think that way.
Transit is by far the superior option, but we’re talking decades, centuries to hook up these small towns. In the short term, EVs will lower our dependence on fossil fuels at least.
My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.
Slightly less efficient, but I think I’m more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it’s just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we’re gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren’t installing charging stations.
It’s a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it’s not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially “replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge”, there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it’s lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.
My issue isn’t with adding electric to a gas car. My issue is adding gas to an electric car.
The ICE drive train adds a TON of complexity to an EV. If you’re gonna add ICE to an EV I think that it makes more sense to have a little range-extender generator, which is simple and cheap (because it only needs to run at a single RPM and constant load) which you can just run to add a bit more charge to your battery on long road trips.
But ideally we’d just have better charging infrastructure.
In the 20 minutes since reading the meme, posting a comment elsewhere in the thread, then posting this one? Took a few more bites of my lunch and watched some of a retrospective about the TV show Farscape on Youtube.
Haha, nope no missile. It’s america, not russia. The post lead to a selling page showing photos of the place. It looked legit and it was taken down in a day or so… or they sold it.
I thought this at first as well. But then I thought he probably is that dislodged from reality that he genuinely thinks he’s discriminated against when people mention equity and stuff like that because he’s the antagonist of equity.
If everyone in the world is at least not poor and comfortable it means a lot less wealth for him; a big No No for PeElon.
The origin of that phrase is ironic, given how it’s used. It originates from a USENET post from the late 90s by what was essentially a proto-MRA referring to a woman.
I could see applying it in that direction today still, if talking about certain domains, like conscription or basically anything tied to the criminal justice system, or services for the homeless or victims of abuse.
For real. Diversity could easily be considered antithetical to racism. Inclusion could be considered antithetical to sexism. But no, Chef Elon made pseudo-intellectual word salad.
But, “Worlds grossly richest man not big on equity” feels like an Onion article title.
I feel like wokeness in general requires empathy and understanding of the plight of others. Anti-woke means being unempathetic, and folks feel that is positive? I literally can’t comprehend being for Team Sociopath, but millions of people will vote for Trump, so it’s real.
Could be, but like countries that use the words “Democratic” and/or “People’s” in their names, just because you call something by a word doesn’t necessarily mean that word is accurate.
Often “diversity, inclusion and equity” in practice means doing things that would rightly be called out as sexist and racist but targeting the “right” sex and/or race.
Without citing specific examples, it sounds like you just don’t like affirmative action programs, which is an opinion I’d be embarrassed to say out loud. When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo—poorer minority groups continue getting into schools at lower rates since they live in poorer neighborhoods with poorer schools and poorer access to the funds needed for higher education, women continue getting passed up for management positions, leading to more male dominated companies hiring more men for more management positions, et cetera
Not the guy you replied to, but I’ll give you one: if you are male, it is (or at least was last federal election) impossible to be at the highest spot of any candidate list of the german green party. There was a hard rule that spot 1 had to be a woman and then it alternates. The alternation rule seems pretty alright, but blanket excluding someone from the #1 spot because of gender is pretty blatant sexism. It doesn’t matter that women were in that position and worse in the pretty recent past, 2 wrongs don’t make a right (also ironically this kind of ignores other gender identities entirely but they’d probably be given the woman treatment as they’re clearly generally disadvantaged, which seems alright). Something like having at least 45% at #1 of both men and women and then keeping the alternating rule seems a lot more sensible, or even flat out forcing 50% and flipping the genders each election.
I can also spend a very long time talking about how affirmative action in general feels more like the lazy route to achieve a somewhat better state since socioeconomic factors play a huge role in education and those heavily correlate with ethnicity, but it’s unfair to exclude people based on their skin color (almost like that’s racism by definition), but whatever. I haven’t seen any cases of it being actually abused, and overall just fast tracking more representation of all sorts of people into all kinds of jobs and social groups will likely help a lot against racism in the long run. It just feels like the inferior means to that end.
Germany has things like giving disabled people preference in job applications given otherwise equal qualifications which I think is great as they most likely have much fewer options overall, and I believe that might be considered affirmative action too? I’m not super familiar given that that’s not a term here.
To your last point, yes, affirmative action is the term the U.S. has decided on for programs such as that one. There may be newer phrases in use, I don’t know for certain.
I would agree on the ‘lazy’ argument. It certainly feels like we could do better. But that always seems to be true!
I have on a personal level had to learn to avoid letting perfection get in the way of improvement. Whether that is broadly applicable to policy is debatable—I would welcome much more radical change, but I also feel as though radical action in one direction spurs more radical opposition. For instance, Biden tried to forgive $430 billion in student debt in the U.S. and it was in the news, argued over, eventually stopped due to some absurd court cases—yet he and his administration have successfully gotten about $132 billion forgiven in other avenues, step by step, with much less fanfare and thus (in my mind) much less opposition as well.
In regards to the German Green Party, and to for the moment ignore the question of additional genders, I thought that there were currently two co-leaders, one man one woman? If that is not the case, and even if it is, I assume the argument would be along the lines of ‘women have been underrepresented for so long that it is reasonable to give them a stretch of overrepresentation in order to bring a semblance of balance around.’ Or ‘other parties are mostly led by men so we will be led by women for some semblance of balance.’ Neither concept seems crazy to me.
And on the question of alternative gender presentations I think the issue is one of how to enact the greatest good for the largest number of people. The rights and representation of trans, non-binary, etc. peoples matter very much to me, knowing several such people personally! But collectively they do at the moment make up a small portion of the population. I think they should be encouraged to do whatever it is they want with their lives. If that is to pursue office with the Green Party, so be it. Such a thing seems like it may take a change in language to ‘allow’. But it does not mean the rules are bad conceptually or that they need to be thrown out—more inclusive language seems like a small change that does not require a change in the direction of progress.
That’s the ‘affirmative’ side of affirmative action—taking an action like encouraging trans people to run for office. Temporarily banning men from holding office wouldn’t really fall under the umbrella in spirit I suppose, but isn’t the outcome the same, and thus whether or not you take offense at the concept a personal choice, or at least worthy of a philosophical debate?
Visiting again the concept of laziness: just appointing women to leadership positions does not make everything fair. For instance, the disabled may suffer more social exclusion under female leadership, because women tend to see disabled children in terms of the additional child raising work they represent (of course, mostly men’s fault for pigeonholing women as homemakers). But this is a reason to improve the course we are on. It is okay to critique, to point out the ways that things are not going the right way. For instance, feel free to complain about how the focus on social justice overshadows the larger issues of economic injustice that hold everybody down! Feel free to point out groups that are being forgotten. Individuals who benefit from affirmative action and then turn around and preach self sufficiency. Personally, I think men’s mental health will need to be a bigger focus! It’s clearly an issue, and since they’re still mostly in charge it’ll probably benefit us all if they get some help. Whatever your critique, it should be in the spirit of fostering a world where your genitals or skin color or the neighborhood you’re born in does not determine your life’s course.
But it should not critique the concept. We should not reverse course and say “we were wrong, put men back in charge of everything and don’t let brown people live here.” And that is what I think being against affirmative action means. It means “no thanks, I am okay with the deal as it stands.” The deal as it stands, where in the United States you can accurately predict someone’s income just by knowing what ZIP code they were born in; where despite Hillary Clinton’s career women are underrepresented lucrative fields like the sciences because they’re still expected to put their future on hold to raise a couple’s children; where despite Barack Obama’s success black men are more than four times as likely to have felony convictions than white, taking the community’s right to vote away. That means, whether the person saying it is part of the in-group or a well-off member of a minority group, that they have enough, and aren’t interested in helping others get enough. I’d be embarrassed to say something like that.
Sorry I rambled on so much, I am “stealing time” at my job and lost my train of thought a few times as I left and revisited this comment. :)
Sorry I rambled on so much, I am “stealing time” at my job and lost my train of thought a few times as I left and revisited this comment. :)
Totally didn’t do the same thing…
Anyway, I mostly agree with you, just fyi regarding the german green party: Annalena Baerbock was their chancellor candidate, Habeck was effectively what in the US would be a president’s running mate. A duo, but Baerbock was iirc always going to be chancellor if the greens got a majority. And yes, they have joint leadership of the party.
That policy has to do with the german voting system, where each party has to provide a list of candidates for each state. Then according to how many votes the party gets, proportionally many people from that list get into the Bundestag, the list is in order. And that’s the one that had to alternate.
The greens as of last federal election are big enough to where this effectively isn’t going to single out anyone, they will get a few candidates from every state into the Bundestag. However the principle of forcing the gender of slot 1 just left a bit of a bad taste. Still voted for them and will most likely do that again.
Just some extra detail that I think you might have been missing about the German electoral system. #1 spot doesn’t refer to the leader of the party as this comment sort of seems to imply.
Germany uses a voting system called Mixed-Member Proportional. In it, you vote for your local candidate exactly the same as you would in America or the UK—using first past the post. But then you also vote for your favourite party. And there are additional seats in the Bundestag (congress) that are not tied to a particular region, but are instead used to “top up” the total of the Bundestag so that its party representation is proportional to the wishes of the voters. So if 10% of voters want the Greens and 20% want SPD, then 20% of the seats will be SPD and 10% will be Greens. If a party wins more seats in local elections than it is owed proportionally, it gets no additional people. If it wins fewer local elections than its national party vote percentage, it gets topped up using its party list. The #1 spot on that list will be the first person elected under this system, unless they also won their local race, in which case it goes to #2 instead, etc.
MMP is a really good electoral system, and honestly it’s probably the one I would advocate for and would encourage Americans and Brits to advocate for in their respective countries. Though I would replace the party lists entirely with a “nearest loser” to eliminate the problem @LwL describes. I’d also prefer IRV be used for the local part of the election, though that might be overly complicating it for some. Having those proportional top-ups means third parties not just can earn a place (which is what IRV by itself does), it actually guarantees that they will earn a place, if any sizeable number of people want them to. No more Nader ruining it for Gore; instead, Nader’s party will actually have representatives elected.
So looking back at the example they described about Germany, if we ignore local seats for the sake of simplicity, if the Greens are owed 1 seat, that seat will always be a woman. If they’re owed 2 seats, they’ll have a woman and a man. Owed 3 seats and they’ll have two women and a man. Etc.
When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo
Then targeting socioeconomic status makes more sense. Any system that categorizes people and puts poor white folks in the same “has all the money and connections” bucket as the Clintons and the Obamas in the same “has no money or connections” bucket as poor black folks is not, in any way, actually about having money or connections.
Well unfortunately, the overlap is close enough to a circle that it makes plenty of sense, especially since the issue is not purely economic, but social, as you accidentally point out by using the phrase socioeconomic. Obama has wealth that is unfathomable to the everyday person, as does Clinton—both deal with a society that belittles them because of who they are in a way that white men don’t face, rich or poor.
Surely you’ve noticed that Obama is the only black president so far, despite black people making up 10 to 20% of the population over the last few centuries.
You are also aware that Clinton would have been the first female U.S. President. She won the popular vote by a significant margin, which is a great sign for public opinion on women, but the reality is still that women, who are more than half the country, are not more than half in charge of it.
The fact these two got as far as they did is in no small part thanks to the concept of affirmative action, where we try to right past wrongs and level the playing field. Encourage women to go into nontraditional fields, encourage black students to apply for Ivy League schools and ensure there are spots for them—these things only “hurt” white men because resources are so artificially limited already, disproportionately held by the tiny percentage of [rich white men] who control the US’s giant conglomerates and obedient politicians, and regular old white men aren’t used to feeling the squeeze.
Did Obama pull the ladder up behind him somewhat by applying the same neoliberal bullshit that has destroyed the concept of compassionate social safety nets in favor of a more competitive marketplace? Can you be mad at him? Yeah. That’s beside the point. White people have been allowed to fuck over other white people for ages.
honestly what I hate the most about those quotes is that every one of those slogans actually have a quite clear meaning , especially within the context of the book .
I find myself saying “We are the dead” quite a lot when something reality bending occurs (you know, like Elon opening his pie hole), because that’s how it feels.
After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Western leaders? Name them.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Because Russia attacked them.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
Pretending this just didn’t happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Yes, it was and there’s overwhelming evidence for it.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that’s showing any signs of being exhausted:
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN’s original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it’s definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
The foundations of my beliefs are that the west saw itself as the winner of the cold war after USSR dissolved, and decided to renege on all the promises that were made in the 90s. This created increasing tensions with Russia, and eventually led to the war we’re seeing play out in Ukraine. This is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and it’s following the script that was outlined by RAND.
The west made a huge miscalculation thinking that it could defeat Russia militarily and economically, and now the whole thing is starting to backfire. NATO is finding that it lacks the industrial base to sustain the conflict. Russia managed to reroute its trade away from the west, which caused immeasurable economic damage to Europe. The world outside the G7 has been increasingly aligning towards Russia and China and away from the west. This proxy war is heralding the end of the unipolar moment that US enjoyed and ushering in multipolarity.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Have you considered that this might be why you still think that Ukraine is winning despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
Every mainstream western outlet, including the IMF, agrees that Russian economy is growing. No serious economists dispute this.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
Mearsheimer is just one example, and he is a preeminent political scientist in the US. The reality is that there is propaganda in the west just like there is in Russia, and western media often omits covering things that RT covers. Simply dismissing information based on the source is frankly absurd.
Incidentally, Mearsheimer gave an entire lecture back in 2014 predicting the events in Ukraine that are currently unfolding, seems to me that he might know what he’s talking about www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.
This is just far right bullshit. They made a peace deal and Nazi Ukraine immediate reneged on it as soon as Russia left Kiev. The ignorance here is astounding.
Pretty sure this meme originates from an actual, specific Twitter exchange. Which became so legendary that people just repeated it secondhand, and now the secondhand repetition of it is getting screenshotted and posted.
On the one hand, salt destroys cars, which is based. On the other hand, salt destroying cars means more cars get bought, which is cringe. On the third hand, salt makes it easier to walk, which is based. On the fourth hand, salt is notoriously bad for the environment (nobody ever threatened to beet juice someone’s fields, you know) which is hella cringe.
I guess what I’m saying is skip the salt, use beet juice, and lay out spike strips on the road
I can’t think of another word where spelling it correctly isn’t enough. One must also convey the way they pronounce the word too. The people need to know.
Yes, but you didn’t feel the need to add a note about how you pronounced it just now. And I don’t care if you know how to say it right. Doesn’t matter in text.
but seriously, any time some one says they use the J sound, they explain by spelling it JIF. It’s just a joke though. No one cares how you pronounce it.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.