He can cease arms shipments to Israel, but not without losing the election by angering the Jewish voters

This is a good point I shockingly hadn’t thought about until now, but, true, biden could stop sending weapons, and then harris could decide to still stand as though she supports israel in order to minimize any viable hit to her polls, since he’s the one in power but he’s not actually running for re-election. But also, what jewish voters? What, single issue, jewish voters, exist in a valuable swing state, that aren’t already voting for republicans? You could maybe put up nevada or arizona, where they make up 2.6% and 1.7% of the state’s population, but you have to weight that against michigan, where muslim voters make up 2.4% of the population. I think wisconsin also has a larger percentage of muslim voters than jewish voters, as well. I’ve also seen a couple polls that suggest that jews have about as favorable a view of israel as the average american, I’m not even really sure that they’re a specific demographic to point out. Orthodox and conservative jews, maybe. There’s another handful of calculations you can make there, but that also doesn’t really factor in that by far the largest cohort which is going to be voters on supporting israel is probably evangelical christians, which are also obviously going to be a huge piece of the republican base, and that’s not something you’re going to strip away by outflanking them, like democrats are currently also trying to do with the border. The main democratic base, though, is going to be a myriad of different people, since they tend to be more popular overall, more popular in ethnically diverse cities, whatever, and it’s definitely going to be very alienating to the base to decide to keep pumping weapons into israel, take a harder stance on the border, and provide no real tangible economic policy to improve people’s lives.

Not to mention, none of these electioneering calculations, over less than 3% of the population, in very particular states, really means that it’s a good decision ethically, economically, geopolitically, to not pull back on the reigns of the rabid dog we’ve had plopped down in the middle east. Mostly to protect an insanely stupid global trade port that we’re using to help ship chinese goods to europe, and maybe also using to train a couple cops we can deploy to shoot fare evaders and also like 3 other people. Everyone loves to play at an election journalist and say, ah, well, this just a strategic move that exists for some other theoretical person that exists, it’s not really for me. They never actually defend the policy on it’s own merits. Then, consistently ignore the same thing happening, repetitively, for like 30 years, since that electioneering shit was really coined as a strategic rhetorical move afaik. The country shifting rightward, that’s not just some sort of like, crazy coincidence, and it’s not something that’s due to random chance events that happened to screw the democrats over and force them to consistently slide to the right for the last, well, last 80 years, at this point. It’s because the like 30% of hardline voters are willing to parrot the same swill they’re given, and are totally willing to slide as right as is necessary and follow the dems off a cliff, it’s because the american population at large is captured by a huge corporate propaganda apparatus that the democrats are not willing to do anything about, it’s because the american population is swamped by a nosedive in standards of living and a shrinking middle class and are looking for an easy scapegoat. At any point, dems could’ve pointed out that illegal immigrants are, in total, fucking 3% of the population. They don’t, because they don’t really care, because it’s the institutional security stance that we should be more xenophobic to shore up against climate refugees.

Me? I’m not a swing state voter, so I’m just gonna vote for whichever third party candidate is a valid write-in and also maybe seems like they’ll get enough to get federal funding, if that exists, and otherwise I’ll just vote for claudia de la cruz.

I mean, I dunno. It’s been the “future of the internet” since the 90’s, but nobody can solve the fundamental problems with such systems existing in the actual real material world, so we just get hit with an ever dwindling supply of larger and larger social media monopolies. Same as it ever was.

You know you’re also using the internet, right?

Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade.

Sturdy trees WOULD be good for the city, yeah. Unfortunately we’ve decided to, in basically every major city (at least here in NA and I suspect other places), plant non-native trees that have low survival rates and are basically all male. Being male, they tend to also shit pollen basically everywhere. I’d imagine you could deal with the fruit falling to the ground in a number of ways, as well. Could put some canopy underneath the fruiting trees, as to collect the fruit more easily, you could just pay people to come and collect enough of the fruit for use in things like applesauce that the rest of the fruit really presents no issue as far as just sort of rotting and draining into the ground. You could set up a bunch of easy disposal compost boxes every couple feet, so you can just sweep all the fruit up and throw it into that.

I suspect a larger problem would probably be that inside of the city the fruit would be exposed to more than an acceptable amount of brake dust, including that which drains into the planter box, and would maybe not get enough light, but I think those are generally problems we should be solving anyways since they don’t disappear just because we decide not to plant fruit trees. Brake dust on the fruit or carcinogens inside the fruit means that those things are also going to be going into your lungs.

That would imply the point is shit, which I don’t think it really is. It’s more like they’re buzzing around the point like how a fly will buzz around a chili dog at a baseball game. Likewise, they are being annoying and making it harder to digest.

nah.

None of the busybodies trying to sabotage the local transit system seems to want to recognize the twelve cars behind the bus as the problem, of course.

I feel like I perhaps know who may be driving those cars

The abhorrently large firetrucks which increase the response times before they can get out to fires, because things are more spread out. The abhorrently large firetrucks which siphon away more and more funding, compared to smaller firetrucks, and require more manpower to operate, meaning each fire station individually eats up more funding per unit, meaning we can have less fire stations, further decreasing response times.

An increase in response times which increases the size of fires, requiring more and more abhorrently large firetrucks. The abhorrently large firetrucks which cannot respond quickly enough to wildfires and so will allow them to grow more rapidly out of control, perpetuating more wildfire based ecology, more plants which require fire to grow and will encourage further fire. The abhorrently large firetrucks which are not as cute as small firetrucks.

Those firetrucks? Those are the ones we have to build bigger roads for? some people do legitimately believe this shit, too, hoo lee, kill me

you do not, under any circumstances, “gotta hand it to them”

You didn’t bury the pipes

Seems like a bad idea in colder climates, and also, in other non-cold climates. If the pipes aren’t below the frost line, then they’d freeze and bust open, or, if they drained, you’d be without water for the whole of the winter. You might be able to get away with it in a hotter climate, but then you run into other problems. What do you make these pipes out of? A single conduit of inflexible pipe would be best, since this would deliver water along the fastest route, would be easiest to service, and might also require less chopping of local ecology than if the network was more decentralized or if the pipe was flexible. Because you’re going to have to chop up the local ecology to some degree. Tree branches will grow into or around the pipe, which is a bad thing. A flexible pipe might avoid that but you’d gain a lot of other problems in return. If you go with steel, especially galvanized, that’s kind of ideal, as plastic is gonna have a pretty sorry half-life in the sun and heat and elements. So, you could do it, but, it would take some amount of effort. If you had a stable singular conduit, you could also maybe pump the hot water through more constantly, or, pump it back and forth in times of low demand and otherwise store it in some sort of tank more local to the houses, which might help prevent freezing.

I think probably the best solution, in this case, is just to dig deeper than the, say, 7 feet that the tree roots are gonna be, and then bury your pipe about that deep. Only problem is that you’re gonna have a much harder time servicing anything if you have any sort of problem along the way, since now you’d have to trek through the forest and try to get at it through there. You might want to make a whole fucking very deep custom underground service corridor for all of your utilities, at this point, and that’s going to be incredibly expensive. Especially if your soil conditions are garbage, which they probably are, and you’re still going to have to dig and chop through the roots of the trees where you decide to have outlets for your utilities. I can see some sort of combination of an overhead pipe and an underground service tunnel here, that seems more reasonable while still also being insane, very stupid, and inefficient.

Just uproot the trees and replant them later, EZ.

Old growth forests have interconnected root systems, so you’d have to cut up all the trees at the root, raise them up, and then hopefully you can put them all back in the same configuration you got them out in. Not really a great way around that. This is probably going to kill all your trees. The local nursery is actually a better idea, and it’s better just to move away from an industrial scale of tree production that only produces a couple different kinds of trees, which I think is kind of psychotic at its face.

Yeah, well, we’re gonna have to learn how to do it eventually.

I dunno if our population will keep growing, to be honest. I’m not entirely sold on the idea that just education and birth control will curtail population growth to a maintainable degree, or at least, to the degree where our level of growth won’t outstrip our level of innovation to be able to compress said growth.

Also, probably no chance that we return earth to a pre-change state. Well, maybe. You have promising ideas like spraying sulfur dioxide or some other type of aerosolized chemical high in the atmosphere, like in snowpiercer, and that might be able to curtail a lot of the major effects of climate change if only someone was really willing to do it or co-ordinate an effort.

But seed banks, banks of genomic information to re-sequence species from close neighbors. You can’t really bring back those plants or those species if the conditions which surrounded them no longer exist. I’m not even talking, say, the rainforest as a whole, right. That would be incredibly difficult, but you could line up a process of succession, take the hardier species, plant those, propagate them, then slowly start to propagate other plants that can take over and develop other niches as they arise, same with animals, and probably you’d wanna pair both of these with a good degree of population control so you don’t get any runaway problems like with kudzu in the south.

No, the bigger problem there is that, I don’t really know how you would decrease carbon levels, or global temperatures, or decrease soil acidity, or other chemical traces in the soil, or the level of sand in the soil, or whatever other problems you might have. The reasons why those plants and ecosystems destabilized and went extinct will still be around, and would still have to be combated. You could maybe cook up some different schemes to try and solve those, more geoengineering, more terraforming, but we’ve already been straining credulity with this whole thought experiment, here. At some point, you really have to start asking why a shit ton of people would start to undergo this sort of a process if they couldn’t even see the value in the ecosystem enough to prevent themselves from destroying it in the first place.

You’re also kind of looking at it in terms of, what level of natural change should be allowed to happen. The dinosaurs went extinct from natural causes present in their ecosystem, whether that be an asteroid or a big volcano or whatever. The massive fungus forests that died because of the proliferation of cyanobacteria, that was also a natural process. These things were also massive extinction events. So we really gotta figure out what we’re trying to do here. Are we trying to preserve human suffering? Are we trying to lock nature in some kind of stasis because we think that to be advantageous? Are we maintaining nature and trying to minimize human involvement out of a kind of ethical obligation to do so? I don’t really know.

I dunno, in any case, better to just have everyone live in an apartment complex, I think.

Doesn’t Lyft work sorta like that?

I’ve only ever heard of lyft being a normal taxi service where people just use their own cars they already own. Also, I dunno where you’re getting your numbers for the calculation you’re doing, that would probably be something good to include. You could say the same for everything I write, I guess, but none of my criticisms much have to do with the numbers, except for this: I dunno what “smaller european cars” you’re using. Most cars nowadays are like, 2 tons or so at the least, probably more, and you could maybe get one ton of human body weight, at the most, if you had several 250 pound chucks riding around in one car, which I don’t really imagine to be the case normally at all.

There’s also an efficiency created by the “inefficient” route planning of the bus. By having something that travels in a loop, rather than having every individual travel to every individual point, we’re trading some amount of efficiency in terms of total time spent by everyone (theoretically, but this time is probably eaten up by increased amounts of car traffic in reality), and we’re trading that for a slight increase in the amount of foot traffic that people are collectively engaging in, which is probably a good thing. So that’s a total decrease in curb weight as a factor of total travel time, which is a decrease in road maintenance.

You’re also probably looking at a massive decrease in mechanical maintenance for buses compared to cars, using one big engine, set of brakes, A/C systems, etc, rather than like 15-20 smaller non-standardized sets, and maintenance costs for the specific roads you’re traveling on via bus means you can engineer in less maintenance over time compared to a more spread out system.

Density is also a pretty big consideration, because real estate downtown, i.e. the location most people are going to want to go, is at a high premium, both for people and for the city/state’s tax base. High density has the capacity to provide a sustainable tax base for the cost of providing utilities and maintenance by the city… Unless you park the series of autonomous cars all in some huge superstructure outside of town, and then basically just merge them straight into the highway, where you’d still have to overbuild and deal with a massive amount of car infrastructure (more than just the space you’d save on all this parking, since you could just have a couple pickup and dropoff spaces, if that, compared to all this other parking taken up downtown). I can’t really see it working out, and even at the normal densities we’d be looking at, I’d struggle to come up with a way by which it’s more efficient overall.

There’s also other types of buses, if we’re just talking about emissions efficiency, or energy efficiency. Obviously an overhead electrified bus is probably the most desirable, just behind a tram or a streetcar or whatever. Then you have the weird stupid hybrid battery overhead-electrified buses that I hate, and then probably all your natural gas buses and diesel buses and whatnot, and then your pure battery buses.

If we’re talking about autonomous vehicles, then we’re kind of also sidestepping all these questions about like, the scalability of the AI for this, and the computing power we’d have to use on that, constantly. We’d have to deal with the traveling mailman problem on a near constant basis, something which public transport can mostly sidestep by assuming passengers will come to it, and that public transit will be of a high enough density to create desirable locations simply by stopping there. We have all the pedestrian and cyclist traffic conflicts which we’d encounter, or else have to segregate from these cars entirely (something normal traffic already struggles to do adequately). And if we’re segregating the traffic entirely with a large amount of infrastructure, which definitely makes this much more achievable and easier, if still not easy, I think it makes more sense from a top down maintenance perspective to just go for trams or streetcars, or subways, or something like that.

I think the only real way in which I can cook up a reason this might be done, is because it’s outsourcing costs onto the public, and onto the state. Road maintenance can be done by the city, or state. Probably, this would mean that the autonomous vehicles would not be segregated, which means it’s less of a good idea, which I believe, is the primary reason it hasn’t been done. Then, the taxi service could basically make a bunch of money on their highly necessary transportation, which they have created a large need for, simply by existing and demanding a large amount of infrastructure by existing.

Use bicycles, e-bikes, and walking for individual pedestrian point to point travel. Fuck all the bullshit excuses people give about how, oh no it’s too hot out, too rainy, too hilly, what do I do with this cargo that’s not large or consistently arriving or departing enough to be loaded by a freight train, or by a professional truck, but isn’t so small that I can carry it, what do I do with all my kids, etc… Use cars sparingly enough to fill the very minor amount of gaps that can’t be bridged by bikes, cycling, and public transit, as a method of last resort. Mostly for people that would maybe need to live out in the boonies, like park rangers, maybe. Actual farms, not the stupid rich people playtime “ranches”, and industrial locations, they usually have a large enough cargo haul to justify a small freight train, or a large truck taking a small route to a freight yard.

this is THE first time I’ve seen a link to a mastodon page anywhere on my lemmy feed. insane

I just mean that I don’t think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I’d say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they’re not genuinely engaging anymore, I’ve seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

I mean arguably we could’ve done all of that with nasa if nasa had received a similar level of funding to SpaceX, but that’s kind of getting into alt-history.

Depends on the writer. You get a superman DC writer, homelander probably gets treated like every other fascist superman beats up. If it’s a “the boys” writer, homelander probably uses kryptonite to rip superman in half in a graphic full-page spread or some shit. You’re also gonna be dealing with, are we dropping superman into the relatively hopeless universe of the boys, are we dropping homelander into the DC universe, where he’ll probably be right st home with like 30 different characters almost exactly like him, will we come up with some portal stuff, what’s going on there

So I dunno, depends on the writer. Ke personally I’d prefer if superman won, cause it’s more hopeful and less garth ennis-y.

I believe they are what is known as a “low effort troll”

I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.

MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.

Also, why can’t you just take your friend, friend’s guns, in your car, to the range, store them there? is there any real problem with that, or any real reason why you specifically need to have the guns rather than the range, which might be a better long term storage solution? I’m not opposed to your solution, I think it’s workable, I think it has potential to, maybe not get passed federally since the gun lobby is insanely powerful, but maybe work on a state-by-state basis, right, and build up from there. But if you do have an actual counterargument for what the guy’s saying, then you should give it instead of just kind of deflecting, because right now he does seem to have basically refuted all of the hypotheticals you were able to give about why requiring some kind of record every time a gun is transferred is a bad idea, and why universal background checks and the state as an active third party rather than a retroactive third party might be a good idea.

The only counterargument I can really see against it is maybe that it would result in state overreach or people being prevented from having access to guns if we start to see disproportionate enforcement of crimes and certain crimes being reclassified as felonies or something, but that’s also a problem with the current system that wouldn’t really get solved by your proposal at all, so yeah, I dunno.

Ayaaa, we had a conversation a while ago about this same topic. I do think you are still correct in your proposal to make NICS public, but I do also think that the other guy is perhaps partially right. I think such a law would probably be well-accompanied by requirements to own a gun safe (which might be seen as increasing the cost of ownership and thus discriminating and yadda yadda yadda shit I don’t care about), and to keep guns in said gun safe when perhaps they’re not being kept immediately on your person barring extraneous circumstances. I can’t quite recall, but I do believe we also talked about that last time, that there was a kind of need for common sense pertaining to the handling of guns, more than there is, considering how many guns are overwhelmingly passed into illegal uses through relatively simple theft.

I’m also not sure I agree that a violation of the background check, being a fine, is going to have much of an effect. If the fine is cheap enough, that might well enough be just free license to pass guns into an illegal domain and then pay the fine and go about your day. It may increase the costs of illegal firearms well enough which might have knock-on effects in decreasing illegal access to and usage of guns, and what have you, but I think it would probably require a more severe punishment than a fine a la a traffic ticket.

But then, maybe if that’s the metaphor we’re using, then along the lines of traffic tickets, maybe we should just be, uhh, designing the roads differently, whatever that equivalent might look like for guns, but I think that might be stretching the metaphor a little too much.