The answer to why is billions of dollars of subsidies to the animal meat industry.

Yes it affects parts too, at least batteries. Stifling electric car production isn’t enough, ebikes get caught in the crossfire too.

https://arstechnica.com/?p=2026997

Yeah that topology is probably better described as burrito

Kudos to them and the 1900 participating retailers!

Just to mention, this is the equivalent of just 42 electric cars, which goes to show how inefficient and wasteful electric cars really are. Yet governments around the world provide billions of dollars of subsidies and rebates for electric cars while fully ignoring electric bicycles.

Saying maths is absolutely out of place here. Also taxes here aren’t nearly as complicated as the US and there are a number of free tools available to file by yourself.

In a word, yes. Subsides to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars a year across the USA.

I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It’s less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

Connect is a great android app where you can block instances. Though I agree this should be a site wide feature.

deleted by creator

TIL a 1.5 hour drive away from Toronto is “just West of Toronto”.

A free market requires stringent regulation to function humanely and morally. The two are at odds with each other. My final sentence is a critique of neoliberalism, an ideology in which regulation is reduced and power is given to corporate entities and away from regulators. It’s been impossible to escape in politics since Thatcher and Reagan, and leads to some of the worst aspects of today’s society that we havr to suffer. One of which is the poor people who bought a car assuming it’d be safe, just to find that the companies saved a quick buck to their loss. I hope the people win these lawsuits, but I doubt the justice system has the teeth (or willingness) to prosecute this negligence as it should be.

No, but it is the result of deregulation. Similar models sold in Canada don’t have this issue because (drumroll please), federal regulations require immobilizers on new cars. Free market at work folks.

I’m not sure if you’re joking, but in case you’re not, the bidet sprays clean water from the wall, not dirty water from the bowl.

Norway - r = ?

It’s the instance owner. Another reason to use instances other than world and ml.

Hi and welcome! Our take is a little bit more nuanced than that, if I may be bold enough to speak on behalf of the community. We understand that most people don’t have a choice but to own and drive a car for most of your everyday needs: here we call that car dependence. The sane among us recognize that most people didn’t necessarily choose this way of living, and most acknowledge that those who enjoy it have that right.

We do recognize that car dependence has a lot of negative impacts on society: from climate to economy to health to geopolitics and more (there’s whole books on the subject). And we’re a growing group of people who strive to build a better world than the one we inherited. What that means is taking action to reduce car dependence and instead promote alternatives like public transit, walkable towns, and cities built for people (not for cars). It’s a multifacted issue, far beyond the (incendiary) name implies. This discussion is about trains and how safe they are compared to cars, which kill over 50 thousand people a year in the United States, and injure millions more. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Wouldn’t it be great to not have to drive 30 miles each day? That’s the kind of future we’re trying to build for the growing number of people who desire that. Accomplishing that is difficult and takes time and political action that many in this community are trying to build.

Absolutely, these are all totally valid questions to ask and answer as we build walkable places.

Goods do need to move: from hubs (ports, airports) to distribution centers (warehouses) to their “last mile” destinations (stores, restaurants etc). Cars and vans are great ways to move goods even to destinations: even pedestrian streets allow delivery trucks in at low speeds and/or off peak hours. It’s just private cars not allowed in these people-centric places. Though bike delivery is increasingly popular in dense walkable places.

As for heavy industry, it’s true that these places tend to be underserved by useful transit. In a lot of walkable places these kinds of places do have transit: especially industrial parks which can be pretty dense if designed properly. But if transit is truly infeasible, driving is totally acceptable to these places. The goal of a walkable community isn’t to eliminate all car trips. They’re absolutely a useful tool that will continue to play an important role in our cities and towns.

The goal of a walkable trip is to reduce the number of car trips and eliminate the low hanging fruit. Going to school, going to the shops or to get groceries, visiting your friends and family, going to the doctor: in a lot of places these trips can only be done by car because of how we build our cities and towns. There will always be trips for which cars are the best tool: we just need to make it a goal to reduce those trips through thoughtful land use and city building.

You’re misunderstanding his point. Yes, from cradle to grave EVs are better than ICEs. But they aren’t better than other alternatives. The other costs the commenter is referring to is all the other costs of car ownership: building roads and parking lots, building sprawling car-dependant suburbs which destroy ecosystems and inflate infrastructure costs, the tens of thousands of annual car deaths and millions of car injuries, microplastics from tires, heavy metal dust from brakes, the induspitable contribution of car dependence to the obesity epidemic, the exacerbation of inequality, etc. etc.

EVs are better than ICEs but they’re still cars, that’s the main point. They’re touted as a solution to environmental problems: which they are not, period. The solutions revolve around better land use (eliminating zoning laws which establish car dominance and sprawl), less subsidization of the auto industry (it’s to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the USA), more subsidization of the public transit industry, and a commitment by people and politicians to build walkable places and enable car free living.

EVs are a small part of a complex and multifaceted issue. They are part of the solution, but only a small part compared to the commitments we silently ignore because of the plea that EVs will save us.

Subscribe

I’ve never met an engineer who wanted to intentionally design products to break.

The beancounters on the other hand…