axecrazyorc
axecrazyorc t1_j3hngzh wrote
Reply to comment by MetalJacket23 in Facial recognition's rapid adoption exposes alarming pitfalls by Gari_305
I don’t know what country you live in but in the US almost every store has cameras. You’re being watched from the moment you step inside. Especially in local mom and pop joints and certain aisles in big box stores. Most of those domes are empty but not all of them.
I agree with the sentiment of not wanting to be watched but expecting to not be observed on private property isn’t realistic. In public? Yeah, I really don’t like the idea of cameras mounted on every street pole. Or in places where we should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a bathroom or our own homes.
axecrazyorc t1_iwz10ov wrote
Reply to comment by DukeLukeivi in US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead by nastratin
Don’t be obtuse. What they’re arguing is that the additional fossil fuels burned to produce the power to charge the electric vehicle dampens or negates the impact of the electric vehicle. Which is true. Saying burning fossile fuels to power electric cars is green is like saying burning coal in a power plant to heat your home in winter produces less pollution than just burning coal in your home. Switching to all EVs means next to nothing if you don’t also update the power generation infrastructure to match it.
If your takeaway from that is “why bother” or “both sides” then the problem is entirely you.
axecrazyorc t1_iwz0exe wrote
Reply to comment by FM_103 in US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead by nastratin
Even as someone who’s pro-nuclear that’s bullshit and you know it. Nuclear is nowhere near the cheapest, nor is it actually the greenest. It’s a far sight better than the vast majority and we’d collectively be a lot better off if the fossil fuel companies hadn’t funded bogus “studies” about it, but it’s not “the best.”
axecrazyorc t1_iv53xko wrote
Reply to comment by New_Parsley6211 in As long as incentives are misaligned, it's improbable to achieve change by tawhuac
>Offer tax cuts
>Force them to not use taxpayer money
A cat and a dog can’t make children. These things are inherently incompatible. If corporations get a tax cut the burden falls on the rest of us; it’s the same as NOT giving them a tax cut and just giving them money. It all washes out the same.
Give small businesses loans and other incentives. Carefully monitor the systems involved to ensure we don’t see the shit we had during COVID where giant corps took grants meant for mom-and-pops and pocket the money. If a business takes out a loan make them lay out exactly what that money will be used for. If they say they’re going to invest in improved infrastructure, make sure they actually do it. If they violate their word, hammer them so hard they never recover, and make sure that punishment extends to investors: make that company a liability rather than an asset.
Meanwhile, tax corporations at at least the same rates as everyone else. You don’t get a tax break just because you employ 500k people. Tie tax exceptions for corporations to public works, on the condition that they’re truly public. Walmart builds a new bridge or funds a new desalination plant, rebate them the cost of the facility over a five year period. If it fails due to any circumstances other than terrorism or acts of God, the rebate process ceases immediately.
Capitalists love to talk about all the good corporations do, it’s time to put their money where their mouth is and tie the rewards they traditionally get for just existing to ACTUALLY doing good.
axecrazyorc t1_iv53kyb wrote
Reply to comment by strvgglecity in As long as incentives are misaligned, it's improbable to achieve change by tawhuac
In the long term it is. Capitalist by design favors the individual. That’s not inherently a bad thing, until it comes at the group’s detriment.
Humans evolved as social animals; attaining personal benefit from the group’s success is both normal and optimal. If the group has more food, everyone is stronger for it, which means the group can get even more food as well as better defend themselves. If one individual hoards the food for themself, the group is weakened, losing the capacity to obtain more food or defend its members, which puts the food hoarder at risk as well.
Capitalism encourages and protects the food hoarders. It’s not “i need to make sure the rest of my group also has food so they can protect me,” its “if the rest of my group isn’t also hoarding they deserve to starve.” Instead of “I share my food so we all have the strength to get more” its “I give them some food so they can get more for me.” It’s unsustainable. No other social organism lives like that.
axecrazyorc t1_iuenliq wrote
Reply to comment by Dr-Beeps in Electric vehicles catch aflame during Ian aftermath by sacrificezones
r/mildlyinfuriating material, that. Imagine Americans suddenly having a debilitating fear of geothermal after a volcano in Hawaii…
Actually I can 100% imagine that happening if politicians put the right spin on it. Probably say something about Yellowstone. Iirc that’s how it went in Germany; politicians with fossil fuel ties hit the ground running and drove a panic about how “DaNgErOuS” nuclear power is. And seeing as how the average person of any nation has as much sense as a goose, and only get stupider the more you group together, it wasn’t hard to convince them that every reactor in Europe was a hard rain from glassing the entire continent.
axecrazyorc t1_iudth15 wrote
Reply to comment by irishmadcat in Electric vehicles catch aflame during Ian aftermath by sacrificezones
Then that’s not a criticism of nuclear power, it’s a criticism of of the government. Which is fully valid.
It’s also worth noting that the Fukushima reactor’s safety systems did EXACTLY what they were designed to do. The plant didn’t melt down, it flooded in a record-setting tsunami caused by the largest earthquake in Japanese history. Even then it caused 1 death from radiation poisoning and 13 non-fatal injuries. I’d say that’s pretty impressive all things considered. Hell, even the WHO said any increased risk of cancer due to radiation exposure was negligible, with radiation levels in the area being under 10 mSv over a lifetime, compared to 170 mSv from just normal background radiation.
axecrazyorc t1_iudptc9 wrote
Reply to comment by natophonic2 in Electric vehicles catch aflame during Ian aftermath by sacrificezones
Feel that SO hard. What’s worse is you also have people on the OTHER side of the fence who believe one bad example of [thing] means all possible forms of [thing] must be bad. The actual anti-nuclear crowd who think all reactors everywhere are just Chernobyl. So the people with valid criticisms or ideas about how [thing] might be improved get shit on by both sides.
axecrazyorc t1_iudfwbh wrote
Reply to comment by funkboxing in Electric vehicles catch aflame during Ian aftermath by sacrificezones
No, no, NO! There can be no improvement because [thing] is already perfect! If you ever criticize [thing] for any reason it’s because you’re morally against [thing] and are a shill for [corporate entity or industry]!
axecrazyorc t1_itdbpns wrote
Reply to comment by fringecar in Next month, Japanese company iSpace will become the first private company to deliver a lunar lander and commercial payload to the moon's surface. Two more private companies aim to follow them in 2023. Is this the start of a lunar economy? by lughnasadh
I mean. Yeah, if you’re American. Most of our news would rather we forget other countries exist until we’re at war with them. Can’t have us comparing them to the US realizing we’re getting shit and expected to be thankful.
axecrazyorc t1_j3js45i wrote
Reply to comment by yesyupyee in Facial recognition's rapid adoption exposes alarming pitfalls by Gari_305
Yeah there’s also that. But there’s only so much you can do about that. THEORETICALLY we get a say in whether the state starts putting up cameras on ever street corner. Provided enough are sufficiently loud about it. Theoretical.