zlacker

[return to "Twitter applies 7-day suspension to half a dozen journalists"]
1. afavou+n6[view] [source] 2022-12-16 02:16:28
>>prawn+(OP)
So this is how Twitter goes out: not with a bang but with a seemingly endless stream of stories about the little ways Elon is ruining the service each day.

Just staggers me that Elon could have just… not done any of this. And yet here we are. He’s had to sell billions in Tesla stock to finance this ongoing mayhem, this is surely going to be up there as one of the greatest examples of hubris in modern business.

◧◩
2. abraae+U7[view] [source] 2022-12-16 02:25:14
>>afavou+n6
Elon's slide into max doucheness is a real shame. I used to tell my kids he was one of the most admirable people around for jump starting the EV industry (yes, I know he didn't do it all).

Then came the pedo guy comments. I cut him slack, he must be tired/strung out, he'll apologise. He never did.

Now he's become like a meme of himself, or perhaps just himself as he always was but now right out there, and it's not good to see.

◧◩◪
3. scaram+Zh[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:18:13
>>abraae+U7
The EV industry is a distraction to prevent us from doing what is needed to save the environment: ie. minimise the use of cars. It (much like the hyperloop scam it necessitated) is simply an attack on car-free living and public transport.
◧◩◪◨
4. Tulliu+Xi[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:22:59
>>scaram+Zh
No, that's dumb. These are largely orthogonal problems.

Not having EV's wouldn't have made everyone suddenly switch to public transit and bikes, as cool as that might be. They'd just keep driving gas and diesel vehicles.

And realistically, you can't get rid of cars and trucks entirely. Even super dense areas with strong public transit still use plenty of cars and trucks, because they're useful. You think Singapore and Tokyo and Seoul could run on no cars or trucks whatsoever?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. scaram+Hx[view] [source] 2022-12-16 04:55:41
>>Tulliu+Xi
Car-free living doesn't imply the total eradication of all cars. It just means reducing dependency on them to a bare minimum: ie. those uses which cannot possibly be replaced. The former is something that literally nobody has ever proposed. The latter is something which is a serious policy option.

Also you are making a logical fallacy by assuming I am saying that -EV's- (sorry: "EV industry", different thing) are singularly responsible for the lack of decent climate policies. I just said they were an attack on the objective. One of many.

FYI: I live in Seoul and there's certainly a lot that could be done to reduce the insane amount of cars from current nightmare levels. Korea has a very powerful auto industry, one thing they could do is stop subsidizing it. Switching to EV's will undermine any effort to do that "bEcaUsE EV's aRe grEeN!"

[go to top]