Nobody is mad at you for having a car thats reasonably sized. You should be the most angry about these child-flattening-front-over-machines because youre the one who they’ll kill while they’re playing pokemon go on their dash television instead of looking at the road.
These assholes are destroying your roads, giving your kids asthma, and running over your friends and family. And they hate having their sociopathy pointed out.
Turns out most car pollution is actually from rubber tires flaking off and putting microplastics in your lungs.
This gets worse the heavier the car is, and because electric cars are heavier, theres a chance that EVS could actually be worse for particulate emmission than moderately efficient regular cars.
Wear is nonlinearly dependant on number of cycles, materials, and load. I’ve not seen anything in the litterature that indicates rubbers can maintain safety while decreasing their amount of particulate pollution. In fact, ive seen that they are a direct trade with one another.
Lighter cars being forced to drive slower, would do something about it. Also, simply restricting the number of cars in a city the same way we restricted the density of coal burning power plants in a city would also solve the problem in the exact same way.
Non-rubber materials such as steel do not have this problem, which is why trains are good.
Emissions Analytics provides various samples from its tests to give an all-round view of tyre pollution. The team has now tested more than 300 tyres on the European market, identifying 78 organic compounds and recognising 46 hazards codes. It turns out the least toxic tyre compound is 85% less polluting than the most toxic version.
I think the answer does lie in using less toxic tyres, as a starting point, something I was suspecting.
Another source says:
The International Union for Conservation of Nature pegs tires as the second leading source of microplastic pollution in oceans, and one 2017 study found a global per capita average of .81 kilograms in tire emissions per year, ranging from .23 kg per year in India to 4.7 kg (roughly 10 pounds) in the US. That may seem minor stacked up against the nearly 300 pounds in plastic waste the average American generates each year, but microplastics are tiny by definition — and an insidious source of toxins that researchers are only beginning to understand.
There is a colossal difference between India (where I live) and US, for example.
Also another article points out only large BEVs will be heavy, as usual BEVs will become similar in weight to normal fossil fuel cars by 2025.
Motorcycles produce exponentially lower pollution than cars, and cycles more or less produce none, which should be used, but cars are a need due to shitty designing of cities, and capitalist growth chasing.
Oh that’s excellent news. I hope this won’t be used an excuse to neither lower vehicle speeds nor improve the places that we live. I also don’t know if this will offset the doubling or tripling of the average automobile in terms of weight that is happening. Also, I fear that if these tires are even slightly less profitable to create, they will not be adopted, rendering fixation on them worse than useless.
It’s also a massive issue that some tires and asphalts are far quieter than others, which makes the people forced to live near high speed car infrastructure substantially less miserable. Noise induced stress is one of those health effects that I’m personally too anxious to read in detail about, as it scares the hell out of me. It’d be wonderful if quieter asphalt and tires were also the same kind that were less polluting, but I have learned that tech brained ideas pitched by car companies claiming to solve their massive problems rarely do.
Also, perhaps “EV magazine” has a vested interest in portraying inherent problems with automobiles as non-inherent?
I don’t want less car induced lung cancer, I want no car induced lung cancer.
Halving vehicle weights or ranges or top speeds would also nonlinearly decrease tire wear while also decreasing vehicle cost and danger to others, but here in the US none of those things are happening. Instead, every possible negative attribute is worsening, along with corresponding fluff pieces and propoganda to convince truck owners that they aren’t doing the harm that they are doing. I also feel terrified that these fluff pieces are poisoning wells of activism around the world, harming the entire human species rather than just the imperial core.
It’s true that smaller, two wheeled vehicles are drastically better for the environment, and the fact that so many cities in europe and southeast asia are able to exist with so few “cars” is a disagreement I have with your last, excellent sentence. I very much wish I posessed the intelligence to separate Private automobile ownership from Commercial automobile ownership, but I forget to most of the time. I do genuinely believe that private automobile ownership should be as rare as policy can make it, just like it is (kind of) for airplanes in the US.
I only shared the EV magazine link as I saw fair amount of neutrality. I knew this was going to come up, conflict of interest usually does become a problem, but it looks OK here on this topic.
Its all about the Pareto’s principle, no matter what it is. Find the Pareto frontier, and target it, but with proper assumptions as there can be more than 1 case targets. So that would look like, in no order:
an actual (and not for media optics) cutdown on speeds
less weight of cars without compromising safety
methods to hinder tyre particles from getting out at all (Tyre Collective built a device releasing next year, as these particles are electrostatic)
using less cars and more motorcycles
better and less toxic tyres
any tyre companies penalised, and tyre industry regulated for tyre pollution like how tailpipe pollution got regulated and successfully controlled
You may be right, but wouldn’t be surprised if some significant percentage of the English speaking world, who grew up in the past 10 years, saw at least a part of an episode in middle/highschool. At least was very popular where I’m from.
It can happen in any lemmy.world community, even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and you wont be told anything, not even that you have been banned or why. You just suddenly can not log in any more and when the ban is over you might even find that all content you ever posted has been deleted and can not be brought back. Lemmy.world admin team urgently needs to improve their banning practice and they should really consider to start answering emails. On the other hand, did I already tell you what a great instance lemm.ee is? They also have a very nice admin team over there …
At no point have I been angry about something here. This is about not putting all your eggs into one Lemmy basket. Especially one with inadequate people running it. The goal of Lemmy is decentralization, not centralization.
Don’t need to know what you think I see your behaviour. And if you want to talk about a post history: lemm.ee/u/Izzy@lemmy.world - just looking how many times you go after sync. Until you got banned and then switched targets to lemmy world lmfao
Because lemmygrad’s practices have always been shit, you know - being a tankie instance. But ofcourse you would be confused, it’s a requirement to sign up there.
lemmy.world is just reddit 2.0 but worse. Make your own instances with whatever rules you want, don’t chain yourselves to the dicks in charge of lemmy.world
It's at least debatable that some of these guys couldn't help it. Like yeah, you shouldn't slaughter innocent people with various instruments of violence, but you also have to consider what their home lives must've been like. Does Freddie Kruger choose to haunt people's dreams? I literally don't know, I'm seriously asking.
The only one that might have a legitimate argument is Freddy. He was burned to death by a vigilante mob after being "cleared" by the justice system. So one could understand his need for revenge. (Just ignore the fact that he really was a child killer and only got off on a technicality)
Jason has some legitimacy, he was killing camp councilors, as a) they let him die, and b) one killed his mom, who also killed camp councillors who let Jason die
Look, I feel like you might wanna cook your jets with Freddie, he was a pedophile or something. Or maybe he just murdered kids. Mrs. Voorhees was at least getting a twisted form of vindication for the negligence that led to Jason’s death and depending on your interpretation of the ending may have been literally told by Jason’s spirit to do it.
Why is it, I wonder, that society frowns upon my actions when all I do is bring justice to the fore? Why is it that when a teenager transgresses, they are merely given a slap on the wrist, yet when I, Freddy Krueger, take matters into my own hands, I am the monster?Isn’t it peculiar how these youngsters roam the streets at night, unchecked, unchallenged, while I lurk in the shadows, branded the villain? I merely expose the darkness within them, a reflection of their own misdeeds, yet I am the one hunted. Isn’t there a hint of hypocrisy in that?I question the very fabric of this so-called justice. Where does the true evil lie? In the heart of a misunderstood avenger, or in the actions of unruly teens who threaten the very fabric of societal norms?Why does society choose to coddle these miscreants while condemning me? I am but a mirror to their misdeeds, a harbinger of consequences long overdue. Is it not fair to say that I am the embodiment of justice, veiled in a nightmarish guise?And yet, I am the one to be feared? The one to be hunted? Oh, the irony that drips from the blades of my fingers, as they long to carve the truth into the hearts of those who dare defy the balance.Isn’t it worth pondering, who is the real monster here? Just asking questions.
Boyfriend is not paying attention to his 3 armed, 6 fingered girlfriend who is groping his ass, because he is distracted by a blueberry pancake dough dispenser?
Me and my partner never really watched any horror movies, and now, when nearing our 40’s, we’ve been watching at least one classic every day. So far the best have been Scream, Color Out of Space and Aliens. So many to watch still before the month ends.
Evil Dead’s a good series for what you’re doing. The first one is peak no-budget horror that hints at Sam Raimi’s style. The second is why everyone remembers the name. The third is good stupid fun.
The Ring is plain horror. Bleak visuals, intense tone, flawless audio, fucked up a microgeneration. A+, would recommend. Heavily localized from a Japanese original in a way that feels… domestic. It’s why movies like The Grudge got remade for Americans, but the only hint it’s foreign was that it’s not about real estate.
Might I encourage you to watch the scariest game never made? Or maybe a newer cult favorite? Its my opinion that first person game horror has surpassed film horror, if only because it requires you to be invested in surviving.
Film horror and game horror can both be compared to a roller coaster.
With film horror you ride the coaster and everything flows exactly as intended by the creator, it starts up, it climbs slowly, and drops accordingly to a set time. It’s beautiful, it works and everyone loves roller coasters.
With game horror, you have start it up, you make it climb slowly, and you push yourself past the drop. And all that metaphorical mumbo jumbo doesn’t even account for the survival aspect involved in most horror games, which often involve intense jump scares.
It was a small community dedicated to shit talking another community, neither of which I was part of. A few posts showed up in my feed and one had a take I thought was kinda unreasonable, so I commented. I had a nice discussion with one community member, but OP came in hot. After a half-hearted effort to try to defuse, and being blatantly lied to in a few replies, I just told him he was a conniving liar.
A few days later I tried to comment on a different post, but I was banned.
Not a big deal, I’m not invested in either community, but it made me think of the struggles growing Lenny from these small nascent communities, into more more mature communities.
That’s not an ad hominem, though. If someone says something, and you dismiss it and call them a liar, thats an ad hominem. If they tell a bunch of lies, and you label them a liar, that’s not an ad hominem. That’s accurately describing the person based on their choices.
Calling someone a liar is absolutely and always an ad hominem, because it labels their character rather than pursuing their argument.
You can call their words lies and attack those words and their intent, but once you start labelling you are looking to subvert it and attack character by assuming malicious intent.
Which you’re free to assume, but that doesn’t excuse you from the fallacy.
If someone repeatedly and probably tells untruths, and then doubles down when confronted with evidence, I’m ok making that leap to calling them a liar.
It’s okay to be okay with it, it’s even better when there is convincing evidence. I’m just saying you can skip the fallacy by attacking their argument/lie, which you have to do regardless if you want to conject that they are liar.
However it still implies that they are a liar in some habitual or further-reaching sense. This is not easy to prove. Did they lie before? What were those lies and how can you prove them so? Will they lie in the future? How can you know for sure? These are the questions that make it a fallacious label as it frames character rather than argument, and it just seems a bit … dull and irrelevant, when you can attack the lie just as easily.
If something is posted that is provably false, it is provably false. It doesn’t matter if the poster regularly posts accurate things about another subject. The post would still be provably false, even if the poster was normally truthful about barley.
Imo, if someone wants to be seen as honest, the onus is on them to act honestly. If you act in a way that’s dishonest, people will likely acknowledge that you’re acting in a way that’s dishonest. If their only experience of you is through you being dishonest, it only makes sense that they’ll think that you’re dishonest.
No one is owed being considered as an honest and trustworthy person. If you do lie, you should expect the people who you lied to to no longer trust you. Why would they? That’s not a reasonable expectation to have.
Being considered as an honest person is one of those things that you kind of have to do to earn. If you act dishonestly, it would be silly to expect other people to still consider you as an honest person. You don’t get to mislead people and then become upset when they don’t believe you anymore. That isn’t rational.
It’s pretty easy to avoid being labaled as a liar online, tbh. Verify your stuff before you post it. Don’t double down against solid evidence, especially without any of your own. Don’t make stuff up. Accept and acknowledge that you can be wrong sometimes, and strive for the correct answer instead of the one that “wins” the argument for you.
Misinformation is dangerous, and it deserves to be called out. Misinformation can cause a lot more harm than someone occasionally being called a “liar” online by a random stranger.
I would also argue that most people probably haven’t really had problems with being called a “liar” online.
If the misinformation is about how many seeds an orange has, people probably won’t care too much, as it doesn’t really cause a lot of harm. That type of misinformation usually just gets passively corrected.
If the misinformation ends with someone else suffering, it will likely get called out harshly, and probably deservedly so.
I don’t know what’s happened to cause you to dislike people being called liars to this extent, but there is a good reason for people doing that sometimes. I’m not going to stalk your page or comments, so idk where you personally fall on that. Calling someone a “liar” is similar to calling someone “dishonest”.
Sorry, but that’s crap. Questioning the credibility of a liar is not automatically fallacious reasoning or an ad hominem. Attacking their character instead of arguing against their points is an ad hominem fallacy. Pointing out the consistency of lies from a single source and then extrapolating out to question the validity of future statements of fact is rational, logical, and reasonable. It’s perfectly valid to label a liar when they repeatedly tell lies, as long as you can support the label by proving they are lying.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.