Due to Covid many of us probably drive a lot less (working from home) so gasoline prices are not a big deal. However people in service sector jobs are likely affected by fuel costs.
Do you have any stats on this? As I have read (casually) trucking has been 60-80% of consumer goods delivery (end-to-end), and only in the last 3-5 years has rail started picking up long haul freight, as shipping dry goods like coal has become less lucrative.
this really is a "let them eat cake" sort of attitude.
its really shocking just how far detached most HNers are from logistics that is hidden. literally the comfort we enjoy is run by people who don't work from home, who are most impacted by prices.
The drastically increasing cost of rent, even in areas with lots of land, good Internet, an very few building restrictions has a much higher impact for most people then the price of gas.
I was referring to White House advise on dealing with gas prices.
For rent. Oh I’m feeling that myself. Finally got the point of, let’s move prices are insane. Nothing in a safe area that’s affordable for 50 miles. Minimal in high crime areas.
A house near me that is slightly less then mine just sold for 100k+ more than typical for this area. Nothing special about it or my house, good Internet, lots of empty land, little building restrictions, no HOA.
I think the biggest problem is cult of personality. Instead of discussing actual issues we focus on elevating or disparaging people. In your example - what is the chance that 'your' politician X is always right?
They also have an example of...themselves - that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor
I think you forgot to add 'so far...'
that all it takes to be left alone is being reasonable and not needlessly bellicose towards their great power neighbor so far.
and either way, there is nothing at all that Ukraine did that justifies the murder and rape of thousands of civilians including children. Russia has forfeit their place on the stage to be treated as a rational actor. At this point its like saying all you need to do is not purchase a firearm to provoke your serial killer neighbor.
Like how invaded Finland, stole a bunch of land, and then interfered with Finland's internal politics so much they came up with the term "Finlandization" for it?
Not a great example dude. Everyone eventually hits the "Poland" moment, where you can't keep appeasing a dictator.
Carbon offsets do make sense but only after low hanging fruits have been picked. In other words, only when we are over 50% renewables - carbon offsets would make a difference. The reason being is that the next 50% would need extra investment and effort.
The only carbon offsets that should be permitted are direct air capture of the CO2 you're emitting. This forces all but the most difficult to avoid CO2 emissions to alternatives (at the current price of $600/ton per Climeworks). Emit, but pay the true cost to capture and permanently sequester (on human time scale) what you're emitting.
Anything else is the equivalent of indulgences. Forests can be clear cut or burned after being paid to not be, etc.
> The only carbon offsets that should be permitted are direct air capture of the CO2 you're emitting.
That's not an "offset" - that's just a system that doesn't emit CO2. Offsets are when you decline to reduce CO2 emissions, instead paying someone else to <mumble>.
Offsets were always a scam. As I recall, they were sold to us with the promise that carbon "prices" were introductory, and were supposed to go up quickly and dramatically. At any rate, the whole idea of a "market" in carbon emissions is silly, because the price of the underlying asset is set by governments.
How do you not emit CO2 when producing cement? The only way to be carbon neutral is to "offset" it by having some carbon capture industry to somehow remove the equivalent of CO2 from the atmosphere.
From what I have read, one of the issues though is that there are only a finite number of trees that can be planted on the earth so carbon offsets of that nature are in a sense a one-off thing available to humanity - they buy us some time but aren't a sustainable solution by themselves.
Iraq was able to "complete" its invasion and decapitation of military command & control in two days because the Kuwaitis were massively under prepared. After that you then need to consolidate your position and that would be days if not weeks of deploying troops and their equipment deeper into the country.
So after seven months of occupation there's probably a heap of logistics required to extricate and decamp your forces & equipment that likely isn't going to happen even in 10-15 days.
Would you not accept that African-Americans might be victims of circumstances? As shown in the article it matters where you live. Also, criminal who's house FBI forcefully entered was not 'white'.
> Would you not accept that African-Americans might be victims of circumstances?
I don't introduce new standards for them. If you want to mitigate racism, hold them accountable for their actions and don't act like people with a different skin tone can take no responsibility.
Dismissing others hardship or injustice because theirs is worse seems very counter productive.
What is the intention of pointing out that African-Americans have it worse? Should we have special laws only for that group? Or, should more non African-Americans die due to bad laws to balance the scales.
I never dismissed anyone's hardship. Read the first line of my comment again.
The intention of pointing that out was in response to a specific comment. Context matters.
I want police violence to stop. Period. I want them to be held accountable for their actions. But when an article talks about the way law enforcement treats people of different classes with two different standards, and someone starts complaining that black people are getting more media attention, I feel obligated to reference the reason why, without dismissing anyone's hardship. Again, context.
If you read what Musk says now or years ago he actually is very much for moderation, but not censorship or banning people of the platform. In a way Musk is for something similar to HN point system.
I get that, but the line between moderation and censorship is very culture and topic dependent.
That's obviously true for authoritarian countries like China but even in "the West" there are competing definitions of what constitutes free speech.
If you want to operate in those countries (at scale) you need to localize your moderation policies and therefore "take a stance". Cost of doing business globally.
