Any disincentive may act against the core goal, so you have to weigh their value.
No one wants broken garbage installed, but if they do get installed and can be fixed, youre still farther along the "get infastructure deployed" timeline.
7 is heaven, sir.
To get them built. Electric cars are only viable if people can use them on the same infastructure, in roughly the same way as gasoline cars. A core part of that is a expansive and reliable charging network that spans the nation.
It doesnt need to be "gas stations" anymore, but they need to be as convenient, at least in their own way.
It's common, and arguably one of the most useful parts of goverment, that highly positive but fiscally negative projects will be "seeded" for a number of years with goverment money. This happened with electrication, telecom, internet access, etc. Goverment subsidies the intial infrastructure for profit to occur, and then profit motives take over and the government can end its investment. In this way, the goverment can shift the nation in positive directions, improving its citizens lives. This fucks up at times (see hundreds of billions in broadband investments and the glacial or non existent improvements), but is largely a sound idea.
Thats why Bidens IRA pushed so much money into various green tech, including charging infastructure. If the chargers are there, it solves a core EV adoption problem, which spurs green car tech forward.
It's not a literal statement. It's about a mindset. "Having books" is shorthand for "curious, open, erudite."
Hes saying dont fuck people that lack the above qualities, because it ain't worth it.
The compact SUV is about as close to a electric light truck as you can get in the US, so it does fit a niche.
The journals dont review anything. Other scientists do the reviews for free. Scientific prominence is a key to promotion for scientists, so they publish and review to keep and advance their jobs. Journals were built to abuse this fact.
Scientists publish papers for free, other scientists reviews papers for free, journals charge billions/yr to publish this free work, now mostly in digital formats, a medium that is effectivly free when serving text files.
Scientific journals are a racket, bar none. There are attempts to open source the publishing of these journals, but often if you publish in an open source one, the for profit journals will not accept the piece.
This the the case for publically funded research as well. Scientific journals have paper submitted for free, papers reviewed for free, then they charge the $35/article fee to anyone who reads it, or more generally, they charge universities/etcs in the 5 to 6 figures sum/year for unlimited access.
Scientific journals are a billion dollar industry who do literally nothing for that money. They limit scientific progress to make money, and thats it.
"The prophets: the solution and cause to all our problems"
Jon waters summed it up nicely:
"If you go home with someone and and they dont have books, dont fuck them."
That page is like 30 of these sovcit posts at once.
Dude is deep in the rabbit hole.
mosiacmango
joined 1 year ago
Well you better let hollywood know they cant use guns anymore in movies or TV shows. Very real guns are used non stop in the entertainment industry, and they all point at somebody.
Thr truth of the matter here is that real weapons look real, so they will always be used. Hollywood has impressive safeguards. This movie has a real fuck up armorer who not only didn't enforce them, but who directly undermined them. She was convicted of manslaughter for it.
Baldwin pulled the trigger, but based on testimony he was asking people to move aside and was trying to be safe with the weapon, even though he thought the armorer had already made it safe. That points to an honest attempt to treat the weapon correctly, even if it all went bad.