I can tell some of the people commenting here are holding back, but there is an undertone of something here that isn’t very Beehaw…
Anyway.
As I live in France, I can confirm that something like this was inevitable. First of all, the politician who called the ban is severely disliked. His name is used as a synonym for poop on the internet. That is just a small detail…
It was more or less decided that he cannot put a blanket ban and would need to ban case by case, but I may have missed something since yesterday.
Through migration and gentrification, France has set itself up for minor disasters such as this. Also, through education. I am from Canada, and I remember learning about this conflict in highschool in the late '90s. But, teenager me didn’t even know at the time what a Muslim was or why religion had anything to do with it. Here in France, students do not learn about it at school, they learn about it from parents. The French way of thinking is always about time, context, and place.
So, last week was the time. Context was terrorism. Place was… Israel. The media here can be quite biased. Lots of younger people have no clue what biased means. They consume lots of YouTube and prefer things to be vulgarised, meaning simplified, and will adopt the opinion of a YouTuber or influencer quite easily. This is contradictory to how the French used to think even 10 years ago.
Since Monday, a fake story about Arabs planning a djihad has been circulating on social media. It is all over French Instagram (my partner showed me) and Telegram too.
Ignorance, fearmongering, bloodlust, racism…all the bad shit could boil over. Adding fuel to the fire is the trend of calling out and doxxing anyone who criticises country A instead of county B.
I think the police will have a busy day and some looters will again take advantage of the situation.
Focusing on passenger cars never will be, as their co2 output is only around 15% of the total in the EU. Every little bit helps, sure, but even getting completely rid of cars wouldn’t be enough.
Except that 15% isn’t nearly enough to even really make a dent into climate change as a whole, and there is no way in the near foreseeable future to get anywhere near “nobody uses cars or anything that causes co2 emissions to move around.”
Even if everyone swapped to electric cars or alternative methods of transport asap, which would cause a huge spike in emissions from their manufacturing (~twice of an ICE car) and all the infrastructure work required to handle their charging and all the extra maintenance of roads required from having vehicles two to three times as heavy as most ICE cars run on them, let’s assume we’d get a reduction of 50% for personal transport - you’ve just spend an absurd amount of money and effort to reduce the overall emissions by 7.5%.
If 7.5% reduction is the goal that would be much cheaper, easier and faster to carve out of the energy sector, which currently accounts for around 70% of total co2 because majority of it is still made using fossil fuels.
We need to do it eventually, sure, and everyone who can afford to get an electric car should do so, but it’s like tackling plastic pollution by removing disposable straws and forks instead of concentrating on the massive amounts used by manufacturing sector - visible and gives everyone a nice fuzzy feeling they are doing something, while not actually achieving much. A good cause, but not the most pressing one by far.
Principally agree. If we want to make a dent we need to be going into carbon capture mode - as most likely we’re already seeing cascading effects from the emissions already caused. Permafrost melting and releasing methane, the ocean warming up and holding less CO2.
But the numbers you use are horrid.
The average EV weighs maybe around 300 kg more than a comparable fossil car. Sure, the Hummer EV weighs a fuckton, but a regular Hummer ICE isn’t exactly a Lotus either.
The other negative trend in weight is the SUV-ification of society, and if you swap a Civic for an iX you get double padding.
Lifetime emissions cast a much bigger shadow than production emissions and most EV’s are climate positive one year in (average driving length, average electricity mix).
All of that said; don’t buy an EV to save the planet. Buy an EV because it’s a better car and better for your wallet. Depending on a multitude of factors these may not hold true for you yet, and you should probably just keep driving what you drive.
People focus way too much on the downsides of EV’s like charging infrastructure issues or waiting to charge.
All vehicles have tradeoffs and just because you’re used to filling petrol doesn’t mean it’s a pleasant activity. I’ve spent way too much time freezing at the petrol pump in the winter.
I actually did the math and found I’ve been spending way too much time at the petrol pumps. Driving electric I plug in at home. Takes a few seconds just like plugging in your phone.
Going out for petrol takes ten minutes. Driving on trips my bladder is still the weakest link, but every now and then charging adds a few minutes here and there, sometimes more.
Estimated net average time savings per year over the last four years is about 3-4 hours driving electric instead of ICE. That includes an hour less filling in freezing conditions.
But I digress.
TLDR; Climate is fucked, but EV’s can be good fun. Don’t feel obliged to buy one just yet, wait until it makes sense.
15% is a significant dent. It's 15%! Even half of that is significant. And I'd sooner say we transition to encouraging just about any other kind of transit via our city and infrastructure design (efforts are ongoing, so it's not like no progress has been made) rather than just encouraging everyone to switch to an electric vehicle, but there are all kinds of benefits to restricting vehicle traffic in city centers besides climate change too, probably helping them to sell this policy. It's still a reduction that helps climate change, but it's one of those ones like straws and plastic bags that are much easier to legislate even if it's not the largest reduction that could be made. I guess I just disagree that anything other than the largest slices of the pie are worth putting any focus on, because if it was easy to reduce those large slices of the pie, we'd have done it. Even those large slices can probably be broken up into smaller slices, of which some may be easy to deal with.
How does this help reducing noise? I think with modern cars, tires generate notably more noise than the engine unless the speed is below 30 km/h. I hear no difference between a petrol car and electric when they’re driving past me at 50-60 km/h.
They make make more noise while accelerating which I would presume would be something that happens often in a city center with lots of stops and starts.
they shouldn’t respond to an attack by killing innocent civilians also they’ve been brutally dehumanitizing and terrorising Palestinians in Gaza for years
The deliberate targeting of civilians is horrible. But it’s well documented that hamas uses people as meat shields, by using civilian buildings as ammo depots and rocket launching platforms. That’s, unfortunately, a fair target then…
gaza is literally a small territory surrounded by water and israel where do you think people would be that aren’t targets for missles that level entire city blocks?
Israel definitely could have avoided this, and not fuck up the whole situation so much, but it’s not a simple matter… and self defense is a simple matter… if someone shoots at you, you kill them. That’s what happens when you take a gun. If you massacre a bunch of civilians, then people are going to shoot at you and your accomplices with passion
Military targets yes, if there is a missile launcher or ammo in an israeli building, yes it is a valid target. You have to right to kill anyone who’s actively trying kill you.
The monthly prices users pay per maid are according to race, the website states – with employers charged less for the services of a black maid. “Filipinas AED3,500 ($952)/month” and “Africans AED2,700 ($735)/month,” it states
The website states that Filipina maids require a bedroom of their own to sleep in, while African maids do not.
Nobody does racist slavery quite like the Gulf Arab countries, do they? I don’t know which is more grim, that or the disclaimer:
“Zero legal liability. Maid stays on our visa, so you’ll never have to worry about any legal consequences. If anything goes wrong (eg runaway maid, pregnancy), we’re responsible to deal with any lawsuits or visits to police stations, not you.”
IE, you can sexually abuse your underpaid migrant worker without fear of legal consequences, and the employer can then revoke their visa. What a great service! /s
There’s a lot of really engaging shot-form content on the platform; most people assume it’s just a firehose of what you see when you log in anonymously.
and people actually get their news from there
It’s a poor substitute for a healthy set of reading, but it’s also a way people put things happening “now” online. Not unlike choosing your broadcast or print media, the results can be really interesting or really misleading (or both; okay, often both)
It’s also, like other social media, easily and continuously manipulated to social engineer your worldview. Please try to avoid getting your news from social media, especially tik tok, but also Facebook, reddit, Instagram, Lemmy, Twitter or mastodon, etc.
ALL media is easily and continually manipulated to social engineer your world view. If you can name an outlet which is free of sociopolitical bias on sociopolitical topics I’m all ears. Every act of commentary is exposing a position, whether it be left, right, corporate, status quo, centrist, or any other area of ideology. Not recognizing that every source has a bias is dangerous.
While true, it’s a false equivalence. Getting news from multiple news sources is less controllable of you than getting your news from ‘multiple sources’ filtered through social media algorithms targeting you.
Further, you can often browse news in a private fashion. You can be fingerprinted, sure, but it’s easier to mitigate with multiple news sources than fingerprinting in social media, especially when you get to accounts on both. And lets be realistic, someone getting their news from tik tok is being tracked hard in ways they would have no way of predicting from multiple data sources and with phone information that they don’t realize they are providing.
Someone watching CNN or fox news or abcnews or what have you is not even close to being manipulated in the same way, even if they are being provided a biased data set.
Amazing how tiktok is not outright banned in most countries. When I first heard of the platform years ago I thought for sure it would be banned everywhere yet here we are.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.