This is absolutely true. Remember that automakers greatly contributed to war efforts in the past. It is an indispensable domestic industry, just as much as energy.
Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.
Four way stops that require all traffic to stop for no particular reason are always a bad idea. They're a waste of time and resources.
Two way stops are OFTEN a bad idea, because they require two directions of travel to stop for _sometimes_ no particular reason. (And then they often cannot go without an extensive wait).
Roundabouts are almost always a good idea, assuming there is sufficient traffic. They keep traffic flowing faster, more predictably, and with fewer accidents.
No, they just interrupt the flow of traffic by slowing it down. The classic pattern of side roads with less traffic yielding to incoming traffic on the main road carrying more traffic is the correct road layout that minimizes frustration and confusion. Roundabouts are the favorite tool of left-leaning, anti-car, vanilla soy latte-sipping urban planners.
Btw your 'classic pattern' of highly unbalanced traffic flows is specifically called out as a non-ideal candidate for a roundabout, maybe the urban planners get cow milk in their lattes after all.
Okay, at this point you're going to need a source. Because that's counter to every civil engineer I've talked to about it. Or maybe you are a civil engineer, but got your PE license 40 years ago.
> Roundabouts are the favorite tool of left-leaning, anti-car, vanilla soy latte-sipping urban planners.
Given that part, I think it's more likely you're just a bitch ass maga troll. I hope your dear leader enjoyed his bouncy castle party. How's that ballroom coming along?
> I just want to vent: climate change is not a controversial topic, it's an inconvenient topic for people making a lot of money.
If you’d like to do your part against climate change, you can start by walking everywhere today, avoiding heating and cooling your home, and never flying a plane again. These are changes I’m not willing to make, so the issue isn’t just inconvenient for the wealthy—it’s inconvenient for everyone. It’s easy to shift the problem onto others without doing anything about it yourself.
"Climate Change" isn't caused by flying a plane, it's caused by flying thousands of planes every day. This is a real distinction because the individuals you are talking to do not have any meaningful way to affect the 40,000+ flights per day. Just as a random example.
If your next response is going to be "well if everyone stops taking flights that would affect them all", then yes, congratulations, you've discovered what laws are and how democracies work.
Username checks out. I do live that sort of lifestyle and I think your agument is bogus. Different people engage in different amounts of carbon-producing consumerism, but it's notable that different developed countries have quite different carbon outputs, indicating that it's possible to achieve the goal of lowering the collective carbon footprint without immiserating the population.
It's so easy to sit in an air-conditioned house, with our 2-day delivered Amazon stuff, and just make pronouncements like degrowth, etc.
Meanwhile about 99% of the humans who live in places that haven't fully industrialized are either working feverishly to industrialize like us, or are trying to find a way to move to an industrialized country because of how incredibly hard it is to live where they are.
I also suspect that our most committed enviro-leftists genuinely believe that their lifestyle is already fully aligned to their values -- they don't even own a car, take transit everywhere! They pay an extra $25 for carbon offsets when they fly, and they "recycle everything"! They live in a blue state that mandates high levels of "clean energy" in the power grid.
They do not ask themselves where the factories are built that make the wind turbines or solar panels, what powers their buses and trains and makes the cement that the streets are paved with. What powers the diesel trucks that bring their organic produce and manufactured soy products to Whole Foods for them.
All this isn't to even comment on where climate change actually is on the 2 axes of "Non-issue ----> existential threat" and "Completely avoidable if we start now ----> Entirely outside human control." I'm just saying that I suspect nearly every Western climate change activist would be filled with regret if we started making every societal decision to truly optimize for climate concerns to the exclusion of all other priorities.
Voluntarily opting out of a high-CO2 lifestyle will do exactly nothing. Demanding that anyone recognizing the threat of climate change and demanding a different approach "first change their lifestyles" or using their lifestyles as an indicator of commitment is ludicrous. This is a global systemic issue that cannot be fixed by individual action. Game theory tells you why.
Besides that; all the nice and shiny things you mention - the busses and trains and the cement - can be produced and operated at fraction of their current CO2 cost. Wind mills and PV panels offset their CO2 cost by magnitudes if they are replacing fossil fuel industries.
There's a middle ground between "lets burn it all to the ground" and "let's go back to the savanna".
> This is a global systemic issue that cannot be fixed by individual action. Game theory tells you why.
Nothing will change (and nothing has fundamentally changed since the climate scaremongering started), because people in the West do not want to change their lifestyles, and people elsewhere aspire to a Western lifestyle. There is nothing you can do about this. I am not not going to eat less meat or drive my car less than I find convenient to please some leftist eco-warrior.
There have been many systemic changes since we started to understand the physical mechanism behind climate change and the dire consequences of unmitigated climate change.
Within 20 years Europe has shifted to almost 50% renewables in their electricity production, the US is at 25% and China at 30% (and rapidly growing). Demand has been cut massively through energy efficiency laws. CO2 emissions have been reduced enough that the IPC now sees the RCP8.5 scenario as unrealistic.
We've already changed quite a lot. And this despite you not cutting back on meat or on driving. Think about it.
> There is nothing you can do about this. I am not not going to eat less meat or drive my car less than I find convenient to please some leftist eco-warrior.
You don't do "it" to please some leftist eco-warrior, but because "it" is a unsustainable lifestyle. Whatever shape "it" actually takes.
> I also suspect that our most committed enviro-leftists genuinely believe that their lifestyle is already fully aligned to their values -- they don't even own a car, take transit everywhere! They pay an extra $25 for carbon offsets when they fly, and they "recycle everything"! They live in a blue state that mandates high levels of "clean energy" in the power grid.
This is just a poor strawman/false dilemma: you don't have to be 100% or 0% for something to be effective or true. You're not addressing the actual claim (_why_ climate change is controversial, and particularly why the current structure makes it particularly controversial to corporations, etc.), you're just making a non-sequitur that everyone is affected by it.
It's like someone saying "tax fraud by billionaires is a massive issue" and responding "well, did you declare every single dollar on your tax forms hmm?": they're both issues, but the former is obviously a much more impactful, structural and relevant one. You're trying to nullify their argument by attacking the "purity" of the person, but that doesn't negate the truth of their point. This is like a greatest-hits of common logical/debate fallacies (strawman, false dilemma, non-sequitur).
> they were unable to follow through on hiring many of the grad students they had planned to hire
Most of the "research" done by graduate students and even tenured faculty as a whole is laughable at best. For every lab that produces groundbreaking output, there are countless humanities graduate programs that do nothing but produce and spread left-wing propaganda.
As a side-gig I taught within the doctoral education program for several high-ranking universities in Europe for about a decade (over a thousand PhD candidates). My impression is that nearly all funding for PhD projects flows to fields like medicine, physics, chemistry, computer science, electronics, and so on. Spending on humanities is absolutely minuscule compared to those.
I don't know, I did grad school in psychology and our grants would have been classified as "Medicine" or "Health" but a huge % of it is fundamentally ideological work rather than basic research. Academia really is a complicated mess, it's not an easy problem.
There are tens of thousands of grants. Some of them are classified as "medicine" and study things like hormones, some are classified as "computer science" or "mathematics" and study things like statistical bias. Which of these are the "real science" ones (e.g. HRT in older people with menopause or low-T) and which are the partisan-coded ones (e.g. gender HRT)?
Put aside whether or not you think the latter should be funded and suppose you're just trying to distinguish them to make sure the former continues to be. If you can't do it accurately then the current administration will do it anyway but with a machete instead of a scalpel. You'd need a large team of people who can tell the difference to go through them all and classify them. This is nominally the job of the thing referred to as the "deep state", but what do you do if you don't expect them to be non-partisan?
This is why strategies like "have partisans capture the administrators for our side" are a mistake.
Just do as DOGE/Musk: ctrl+f for "diversity" and deny all grants. Even if it had nothing to do with "woke", for instance diversity in bacteria cultures or whatever...
and esp. since DOGE was led by Musk, who has an appreciation of basic science. One'd think he'd exercise good judgement and caution when it comes to cutting funding for science research.
I'm curious why you think this would be an easy task. It strikes me as quite difficult! Separating scientific wheat from chaff requires a lot of effort and expertise.
As one famous example, Sokal intentionally made up funny bullshit and still fooled a ton of people!
I don't think it's an easy task in reality, but they were claiming there's "countless humanities graduate programs that do nothing but produce and spread left-wing propaganda" outnumbering the important grants and taking up all the funding, which should be a lot easier to audit for and cut a large portion of it without killing any "real science". Instead, we got a clumsy keyword search.
I'm sure I'll get heat for this, but I think a low-resolution first pass a la keyword search was actually an excellent call from a macro standpoint. It (1) clears out a good chunk of cruft, instantly, with little effort and (2) scares people away from doing further explicitly ideological work.
There are a surprising number of social scientists who engage in both good basic research and useless ideological bone-picking, and the low resolution pass effectively pushes them to focus on their real work.
Ah yes, nothing incentivises focus on "real work" like having to check that your abstract doesn't contain any words that trigger the administrations' censors after some ignorant edgelord's algorithm defunded your study of transgenic mice or black holes.
Luckily now the administration has great scientists like RFK Jr setting research priorities, no more useless ideological bone-picking is taking place
Research on weather and climate is now considered "woke". Anything can be labeled as partisan. Safer to stop funding all research, unless it can be shown to support what we already believe.
The Nextcloud app on my phone automatically backs up my pictures to my Nextcloud instance. This is painless to run in a Docker container at home, but Nextcloud also has a subscription service if you don't want to self-host, and your money funds free software.
It looks very plain (black background, monochrome icons, very few apps included). You can customize all that if you want. I personally quite like the default appearance, but I am also the kind of person who uses the default GNOME or KDE theme on Linux and does not bother with custom themes or anything beyond daily Bing wallpapers.
You will find that a lot of banks and other companies have old fashioned websites that open work better (and more privately) than apps. Even Google Voice should be usable through its website. However what is usually recommended by the Graphene community is to call or text via Signal instead.
> I'm not looking to fully de-Google but I want Google as apps and not my OS.
This is entirely possible as other posters have explained. But I think it kind of defeats the point of Graphene, at least somewhat. Google is already profiling every aspect of your life by reading your emails, files, calendar, location, etc? In that case, OS access becomes moot.
I think that GrapheneOS makes most sense as part of a broader move towards privacy-respecting alternatives. I see the sandboxed Play Services as something useful perhaps in a secondary user profile, for the odd commercial app required and only available from the Play Store.
1. A non-Google OS can shut off background running access to Google apps, as well as supply Google apps with mock location data and other data
2. Google does other things to the OS that drive me nuts. Like allowing apps to restrict screenshots. I own the phone. If I want a screenshot, it should screenshot. This is not something for apps or Google to determine, and if the OS listens to me (not the app) it should allow screenshotting the display 100% of the time regardless of what the app cries about.
> Like allowing apps to restrict screenshots. I own the phone. If I want a screenshot, it should screenshot. This is not something for apps or Google to determine, and if the OS listens to me (not the app) it should allow screenshotting the display 100% of the time regardless of what the app cries about.
I agree and have moved mostly away from everything Google. But it's hard to replace maps. I know open street maps exists but it's hard to beat Google's data gathering.
I think OSM is way way better. It has every little path in the hills I walk. On Google Maps I'm just walking in a featureless green blob. OSM even has unofficial trails that are no more than a worn-down line in the brush.
Maybe for cars Google is better but I don't use those. But even there I see really detailed stats.
OSMAnd is a really great full featured mapping app. A real tool that you can configure in detail. And Organic maps is more simple and quick like Google maps.
There's just two things I still need Google for: most businesses don't bother keeping their opening hours etc updated on other mapping services, and in my city they have live data on the public transport network. This should really be mandated to be offered to open street map too.
I use Google Maps on Graphene. It works perfectly. You still get the benefits of the rest of the phone being degoogled. Just allow it to access your location only when you're actively using the app. When it's closed, it's closed.
There are players in the OpenStreetMap ecosystem attempting to change that. I know the team behind Organic Maps are actively working to make their app as viable as possible by sourcing appropriate data for example.
I actually find that it blows Google Maps out of the water for cycling (which is why/how I discovered it). I haven't really used it for driving much because my own car has a builtin nav, so can't really comment on that.
TIL there has been some drama about Organic Maps, what is the difference between OM and CoMaps?
Left from Maps.me to OM because of drama and intrusive features, do I need to leave OM for CM?
edit: seems CM shouldnt have that annoying gift icon
edit 2: CoMaps doesn't display (colored) hiking trails, so completely useless compared to Organic Maps, also can't even display tram lines after tapping on tram stop in Prague
what's the point of the fork if it's missing basic features of the original app? it can't even display tram lines when tapping on tram stop...
and let's not get into making fork of a niche map app of a fork of a niche map app, already Maps.me was very niche app, Organic Maps even more and they make another fork because of their feelings about something?
I've been using HERE WeGo for almost a year. I had to install a text to speech engine in order to get voice directions. (I installed the GlaDOS one, now the evil computer tells me where to go.)
I use CoMaps in the owner profile with Android Auto. Only caveat is that even with Android Auto developer mode enabled, I still had to install CoMaps from Play Store to get it to show up in Android Auto.
It used to be really good, and then it went to a subscription model, with a lot of back-and-forth uncertainty about the change. I suspect the rating reflects that.
Using Sandboxed Google Play doesn't defeat the purpose of using GrapheneOS and neither does using Google apps. It does not exist specifically to avoid Google apps or services. It exists to provide a highly private and secure OS retaining high usability and app compatibility. Being able to use sandboxed Google Play is an important part of what it provides. Many GrapheneOS users don't use it and many who do use it are only using it in a dedicated profile for a small subset of apps but that's not at all required to heavily benefit from GrapheneOS. Moving to more private apps/services over time does make sense but it isn't mandatory and users can choose what kind of compromises they wan to make.
Then there is the issue that BYD cars are presumably connected to servers in China and most probably backdoored. They are too much of a security risk. I would absolutely not drive such a car, without permanently disabling the onboard cellular modem.
reply