I’m sure it’s also to threaten the legitimate government into acquiescence and potentially lay the groundwork for a potential war on “terror”

Many cities were doing this from the beginning. Whenever you read the term “sanctuary cities” it was really just a promise not to help.

Local police are not allowed to assist federal agencies enforce their policies unless it is a crime locally. You can even argue this prevents turf wars and conflicts of authority. States rights y’all

Local prisons are not allowed to detain people that have not been legally convicted of something that is a crime locally. You can argue this protects state resources being exploited by unfunded federal mandates. States rights y’all

But no, it’s a YUGE jump to actively interfere, even if it is to enforce laws against federal agents.

No, technically they’re not. Cops could always be arrested for unlawful actions. And “qualified immunity” includes the word “qualified”.

This is Just like the the literal/figurative debacle: for some reason people are good with redefining a word as it’s opposite. literal now means figurative. “Qualified” now means “complete”

This is a start because it declares federal agents are the same, but as long as qualified immunity means complete immunity it’s only limited help in restoring law

We could be there now. Arguably we started being there.

I’d argue the technology is ready for EVs to be cheaper and we just need to scale. As long as legacy manufacturers focus on legacy technologies and EVs are an afterthought, we’re not getting anywhere. Too many companies want to copy Tesla’s approach: produce a compelling high end product and use that to fund a more mass produced product. It worked for them and now they’re cheaper than ever, but Tesla does not produce a full range of vehicles. It seems to be working for Rivian as well: we’ll see as their midrange products roll out. Even Lucid seems to be successfully following that model. But legacy manufacturers struggled to create a flagship model that was actually compelling. And teslas business model can’t work for everyone. And their strategy has always been a full range of vehicles, but where are they?

The car market has overall gotten more expensive than any of us want to admit, but the Chevy bolt is cheaper than any traditional Subaru. Hyundais/Kia has some great EVs that many people can afford. Chevy equinox EV may be in the sweet spot, if only it were a compelling vehicle. Non-US manufacturers seem to have compelling lower cost EVs that somehow never make it to the US, and I’m not just talking China.

As long as legacy manufacturers like GM prefer to focus on their $80k 9,300 lb monstrosities their choice is keeping EV prices high. But the Equinox and Bolt proves they can make EVs in the same price range as their legacy technology vehicles. And the only problem, the only reason they claim a loss on each one is that they haven’t sold enough to make back development costs in their short time frame. That’s not going to change until it’s a serious effort. Not going to change as long as it’s a second thought, compliance vehicle, because they’re forced to.

This is why the incentives were so important. It’s not just to speed up the transition but to establish a stable and rapidly growing market to sell such vehicles, so they more quickly reach the scale to support lower prices and higher profitability

That’s a great “silver bullet” answer but not realistic. By all means it’s worth encouraging but you’re not getting there any time soon.

In the meantime, farming fewer ruminants helps as well as making progress in that direction. And for those ruminants we are still farming, food additives to modify their digestive products is a clear win. And if that makes animals more expensive to eat, maybe we start a virtuous cycle toward eating fewer animals

Yes, it’s new. My 2016 is fine and my ex’s 2025 is annoying, but I don’t know what year in that range it started. It should be a small thing. I shouldn’t care. But wtf, do you think so little of our intelligence that programming an artificially worse experience will make us like them more?

No i think china decided to invest in manufacturing of future cars. They planned years ahead, developing rare earths and batteries. Then they encouraged new vehicle manufacturing, supported them, pushed them, invested in them, things that all countries do to build a priority industry. Sure there’s some inefficiencies, they wasted some of their money. But they dominate rare earths, dominate batteries, and are on their way to dominate EV manufacturing.

I’m all for some amount of protectionism, some amount of investment, planning on related technologies. We need to fight on equal ground. US economy took huge profits, huge pay, huge benefits from legacy car manufacturing and its important to support that 8n future manufacturing, to try to keep reaping the benefits.

But after doing a lot of research on batteries, we failed to develop manufacturing. After finding huge rare earths resources, we failed to develop those. We finally seemed to get our act together with incentives to develop new technology vehicles, to establish a large and growing market, to develop related technologies here, and to push legacy manufacturers to make the transition, and just threw it all away. It’s great for shareholders that legacy manufacturers will make sizeable profits on obsolete technology for a couple more years, but this is yet another case of throwing away any advantage we had, of pushing manufacturing more offshore.

Yes, I’m afraid that in a couple years when legacy manufacturers decide to get serious about new technology vehicles, they will be too far behind to succeed. They will be buggy whip manufacturers unable to build viable products for the automobile age, unable to compete where there will be a new set of established dominant manufacturers. China is not to blame for our failure, we are

They own the materials.” Yup, good planning on their part

To expand on this: while yes they have great natural resources here, the more important part is they developed those resources. This is just another consequence of poor planning from everyone else: it’s too expensive, let’s let China do it. There’s another ten years behind due to our own short sightedness

Picking up our bat and ball and stomping off home is a worse alternative. At school next week everyone will be talking about the great game that we completely missed from our own stubborn pride.

Allowing Chinese companies to dominate the world auto market so our legacy manufacturers can eke a few more years profit from obsolete technology isn’t going to help anyone. After those couple years, our legacy companies will be that much farther behind, unable to compete in a market dominated by those who were not afraid to compete

My brother had an old Plymouth Horizon that made it to the mid-40s mpg, and there were only one or two cars better.

…. And it was made with aluminum foil. You didn’t want to be in an accident with those

While that is clearlya problem behavior, has it really changed? The same people willing to put that much down on a luxury truck with a loan they can’t afford, would have done the same last year

I used to love Subarus, but they lost me on the condescending fake shift points on their newer CVTs.

Hopefully it’s a temporary blip from EV incentives going away. We needed those incentives to smooth out the transition while EVs are still expensive, but with them being cancelled anyone on the fence had to consider buying in september.

Now we’ll transition slower and more painfully. We’ll continue pushing climate change, to our own detriment. Legacy manufacturers are already pulling back from EVs to maximize short term profit at the cost of viability on the global market. More people will be stuck for decades with obsolete technology and higher operating cost. We always seem to like doing things the hard way

Aside from getting people to eat less beef …… every year or two I see an article about food additives, such as certain algae’s, that help cattle produce less methane. But the story just disappears with no follow up. Whatever happens to those?

I assume part of it is cost but some of us already pay a little more for “pasture fed” “free range” “no growth hormone”. Where’s my “green” beef? I’d pay a bit more for that.

Or does it never actually pan out for practicality or taste or health or something

How is this legal? Even as someone who knows much tighter gun control would save thousands of lives, if they haven’t been committed then it doesn’t matter.

If they have been committed, then it would be legal/fair, although I might disagree

They need to pick a side. Even if you can’t enforce a decision, make one. Are you aiding a fascist in violating the constitution or are you going on record when it’s illegal?

@blave@lemmy.world please translate for the lulz: how would a psychologist say this?

The only difference is now some college players get paid

It only needs to do 5% of what a human can do. They’re basically talking about automating low wage warehouse people

While I realize these are decent sources of jobs in some economically depressed areas, it can’t be a very satisfying jobs and certainly the rest of us not directly affected should have no objection. While I have empathy toward those losing jobs, let’s lose them

A correlation not a requirement.

You could at least as easily say the calendar date is most important. With peoples lack of attention span, will this still matter to them next election? As we continue to build support, will it hit critical mass at the right time to affect next election?

Or on the shorter term, is it only the local results that matter. I live in a blue state that is trying to fight back in some ways. My most important short term goal is to show them that’s what their constituents want. They need to fight back with every chance they get and to not be discouraged.