This is some top tier mental gymnastics. Holy shit, I hope you’re a troll. You’re literally on the internet discussing your plans to commit fraud. Mensa-level shit, here.

People are going to buy CP one way or another… that means you should make it and sell it to them, right?

Grow the fuck up, and maybe train a LLM on ethics, you’re going to need some education on the subject if you hope to stay out of prison.

In the medical industry they refer to motorcycles as “donorcycles”, since, in the event of a fatality you can usually still salvage at least one or two organs from the corpse.

That said, I own a motorcycle myself. :)

I think people (not me, I agree with glitchdx, overall) are probably down voting because it’s a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, with a healthy dose of smug mixed in. Smugness is a great dialectical tactic if you hope to entrench people deeper into their views, rather than convince them to consider alternatives through reasoned discussion.

Do I agree that ideally we’d have robust public transit and increased usage of smaller, greener personal transport solutions? Of course I do.

But, incrementalism is progress. Valuable progress. We could argue whether it’s more likely to get us to the aforementioned vision of robust public transit or not, but history has proven time and time again that progress takes time and is resisted tooth and nail by monied interests. I don’t like it either. I want to wave a wand and have everything change. OP is right. Electric cars are not the solution. But treating symptoms while you work on curing the disease is best practice.

Downvotes don’t make me wrong, chuds.

Oh look, a child is on Lemmy!

Thanks for elaborating! You raise a lot of good points.

I recently tried to consolidate all of my various email addresses into Thunderbird and oh boy is it fun trying to get a 20 year old Gmail account to cooperate. I often find myself having to open up Gmail in my browser just to get anything more complex than checking or writing new email accomplished. It doesn’t help that I have a quarter of a million messages organized between ~70 “folders”, I’m sure, but holy hell… it’s a nightmarescape. Thunderbird never stops querying the server. I’m about ready to backup all of the old messages and just burn the whole account down.

None of those are problems for me.

What is it that you hate about email, then? You’ve piqued my curiosity.

Say what you will, but this person absolutely knows what they’re about.

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

Nothing at all?

Even if you wanted to vote for Biden you won’t be able to because he’s not going to be on the ballot either.

Edit: Obviously Biden is going to be on the ballot, I made this comment just to see how the person I was replying to would reply. Their original post is a lie (Trump will still be on the ballot), and their reply to my comment confirms that they’re either a failing comedian or intentional misinformation spreader.

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}

👍 Good luck out there!

I don’t have a position on cell phone interfaces and hadn’t planed to give one. No skin in this game, really, though it’s clearly a contentious issue!

I just can’t help but notice when people are being terrible conversation partners, mostly. Me finding you to be an asshole has nothing to do with how I feel about cell phone ports.

Anyone fucking stupid enough to think the 3.5mm Jack is a good thing deserves the disappointment they feel every time a device doesn’t have own, tbh, bring it on themselves

Are you 12?

I love how anyone with half a fucking brain poor conversational skills and an inability to see things from someone else’s perspective gets down voted.

Try talking to people online as though they were in the same room as you, IRL. If you’re already doing that, I have to ask, how many offline friends do you have?

So, the Amazon & Walmart strategy?

How can you call it a “free market” if it’s actually a “free market*”?

^{*terms and conditions apply}

👍

Let’s discuss this:

Belittling people is rarely a good dialectical tactic, and speaks to your own level of maturity. If this is the type of discourse employed by green party supporters and campaign volunteers, I’ll be staying away.

Based on what I’ve seen of your post history here, you’re a combative ideologue who’s not interested in building anything other than ill-will, with seemingly zero desire to talk about anything that doesn’t give you an opportunity to aggressively proselytize. You seem to turn every conversation you have into an abrasive display of your moral superiority, repeating the same talking points ad nauseum while abandoning any points that shift out of your favor.

Perhaps you hope that you can activate non-voters with your accusatory, venomous, divisive rhetoric, but I struggle to see how that strategy will be beneficial should a Green candidate make it to the Presidency. Coalition building with the Democratic party will absolutely be necessary to get Green legislation through congress early on; It seems short-sighted to belittle and alienate those who vote closest to your interests on the political spectrum by equating them with those who vote furthest from your interests. Ideals are important, but game theory underpins all political action and must be considered.

Further, RCV does not require the Green party to be implemented. Many states have been experimenting with RCV (and other alternative voting systems) without leadership from the Green party (source). That trend has been picking up steam across the nation.