I imagine they don't really want things. Usually in that scenario if someone insists you can ask for charitable donations in your name and in the case of bill gates he has specific charities to give to.
Probably not. Energy storage is probably the better idea. Check out this link and scroll down to this sections on types of grid energy storage. …howstuffworks.com/…/grid-energy-storage.htm
Oh thanks for the link! This is a good one. According to the article we’re already using:
Pumped hydroelectric
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)
Flywheels
Supercapacitors
And just plain batteries
And the article ends with,
“The price of storage is coming down. The price of solving the problems in other ways is going up. Pretty soon, these prices are going to cross,” notes Boyes, suggesting cost could spur the addition of storage to the grid.
I believe the article is arguing that we need to scale them up. Although: it mentions that the Tennessee Valley Authority already uses pumped hydroelectric storage at the foot of Raccoon Mountain (side-note, I know nothing about Tennessee, but somehow naming a mountain “Raccoon Mountain” confirms all of my stereotypes about the state), to supplement its grid during low-production hours.
England already has two oversea electric cables that connect it to France on the one side and Scandinavia on the other. They have more than paid for themselves already, indicating that this a solution already being implemented in parts of the world… At least for short distances.
I don’t identify as a republican but in my deeply red state it is a given that they will win no matter what. I know some folk that vote for the best of the R candidates. There are actually a handful of R candidates that openly identify as Dem-lite to cater to this group and they are much closer to winning seats than any of the Democrat candidates. These voters usually register as republicans in order to help push through the dem-lite candidates.
The reason I think this is relevant is because the main differences in dem-lite candidates and actual republicans is usually down to the dumbest religious issues like abortion and lgbtq+ rights. They are basically just democrats except they like guns.
It’s caused plenty an awkward turn in conversations with friends as well as friends of my girlfriend’s who are almost universally Classic American Liberal Democrat™
I’m with them on domestic policy, marriage equality, LGBT rights, racial justice, electoral reform, and abortion.
Then we get to guns.
And I’m certainly not some kind of NRA nut or Y’all Qaeda tacticool dope, so it’s a lot tougher to make a strawman against gun owners when there’s one sitting there across from you that you know, like, and respect.
That being said, those occasions also give me pause because I know if we’re falling into that easy line of thinking on guns, we’re probably also doing that sort of strawman on the issues we all agree on too, there’s just nobody present to challenge that view.
Honestly, I feel like it’s so easy, especially in gun crazy states like Texas to run a Democrat who includes enjoying days at the range in their campaign advertisements, that Southern Dems have to be throwing their campaigns on purpose for some reason.
That’s not to say we should be advocating for unlimited magazines and fully auto weapons. But there should be a candidate who is like “Hey, you like your constitutional right to protect yourself? Me too. How about we start funding/investigating the programs that are already supposedly in place to catch red flag purchasers, and find out where the issues are there?”
I feel like a pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, pro-immigratjon candidate would actually make some headway if they just let go of the gun argument, or at the very least dialed it back substantially.
or at the very least dialed it back substantially.
From what I’m aware, Beto O’Rourke completely dropped gun control as a campaign issue when he ran for governor in Texas. Granted, he was also the biggest advocate for gun control of all the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election, so I don’t think anyone trusted his reversal
Yes I was a huge Beto Stan. Had his sign in my yard. But even after his reversal, I kept seeing his “HELL YEAH IM TAKING YOUR GUNS” quoted in headlines all over the state 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Of course Abbott was drowning out all the more sensible shit Beto actually said.
Beto never had a chance of getting elected in Texas on a policy of banning assault rifles. There are certainly policy decisions voters do not forget you made either so he is unelectable there now. Most people in texas support abortion rights, legalizing weed, and gun rights, but they care about the gun rights the most. Beto at this point is just a way for the democrats to raise funds from texas democrats to help themselves in other states.
It really isn’t though. That link you provided has a good mix of good ideas and stupid ideas mixed together for gun control. Many of the policies the democrats want to pass have no scientific basis which is a problem.
Agreed. I read through it, and there’s plenty of bits that are ridiculous. Manatory licensing will never happen because the 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege. Also, it doesn’t make sense that they’re trying to ban online sales, because those require delivery via an FFL, which means all of them get a background check.
I bet you’re closer in opinion than you think. I think most Dems would settle for universal background checks and no super weapons type rules. The same basic rules we have for other dangerous stuff. You need to buy insurance and you’re responsible if someone uses your gun in a crime. Stuff to encourage careful ownership.
And of course you’d be wrong about how similar we are on guns, since most of them are part of the crowd that doesn’t own or use guns and therefore feel that because they’ve survived without them just fine that the only obvious and reasonable course of action is that of course we should simply outlaw all guns and just have everyone all over the country turn them in (not buybacks, not voluntary, just everyone come hand over all their guns). And they feel that anyone who doesn’t see how that’s the obvious choice is just crazy.
Also, I don’t even agree with what you’ve laid out here. So you’re off on both sides of your assumption of similarity.
Yep. I go further left as the years go on, but I’m still pro 2A, though not to the same extent as a lot of republicans.
Should there be controls in place for acquiring and carrying a device that’s only purpose is taking a life? Yep. Absolutely. Especially as you move towards self defense type weapons over tools for sustenance hunting.
That being said, I have no idea how to codify those types of restrictions that maintains the spirit of 2A, while at the same time reducing the vast amount firearm deaths in the US.
There has to be some sort of balance, but I’m not the person to figure it out. Even if I had the gravitas to make changes like that, I don’t have the capabilities to properly handle something like that.
Some balance does exist that not even the right fight for. Violent felons, sexual felons, and sometimes domestic abusers lose their right to bear arms even after they’ve done time served.
It’s also an extra penalty to be armed while drunk (maybe it’s just DUI?) or while trafficking drugs.
American here to confirm that @JoBo is basically right.
Some of the smaller parties have “Open Primaries” (which is to say that you can vote for who gets to represent the party in the real election, regardless of your party registration), but the big two (Democrats and Republicans) have “Closed Primaries” which means that if you want to vote for who will be the Dem/Rep candidate in the main election, you have to be a registered member of that party.
But it is the reason I’m registered with a major party vs the one I actually like; I can always have a voice in the one I like, and I want to be able to have my microscopic amount of influence on a larger party. It’s as much of a “have your cake and eat it too” in the less-than-optimal environment of American Politics as I can get.
The whole idea of a designated time of the year to mass purchase items is just one of capitalism’s greatest tricks. But to answer your question, the ultra rich aren’t human and don’t receive gifts like you and me. Their gifts are the loopholes, human suffering and collapse their greed creates. Merry Christmas.
It’s because money and resources are only valuable in a literal, clinical way. It’s a math problem that beats us over the head until we start thinking that’s how you measure value. That crap is how we sustain our bodies but not our “spirit.” True value comes from humans transmuting basic matter into feelings, sentiments, memories. All the money in the world couldn’t help Gates buy a good gift for himself. He needs people close to him to transmute objects into meaningful gifts.
I think the richer you are, the more aware you are that “money can’t buy happiness.” When we plebs hear this we can’t help but think about the literal value of things, but if you’re rich it takes on a different connotation. Though I can only assume and extrapolate what it must be like.
Honestly I’m very glad to see this thread. Saw the original comment this morning and was thoroughly bemused, it’s probably been weighing on my subconscious all day.
I currently have a smartwatch but I don’t like how I can’t prevent it from getting my text and phonecalls which I find useless because my phone is on me 95% of the time. The only way is to keep it on Do Not Disturb. It also for some reason has trouble updating, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. I just want it to tell time without all the fancy annoyances.
I take that back. I remembered I also wanted to track my heart rate. It’s pretty ridiculous I can’t simply disable notifications without turning off bluetooth.
Turning off bluetooth is just one option. You absolutely can set all notifications to only go through your phone. I don’t know your exact set up but I am certain that is possible and likely not too difficult
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.