- cross-posted to:
- memes@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- memes@sopuli.xyz
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/72601186
Creator credit: https://tiktok.com/@twonkcomics
You must log in or register to comment.
The anti-EU narratives have been pushed so widely, also by Musk himself, that even comics like the one above are spreading them uncritically. The tethered caps are not about reducing carbon footprint but about reducing waste in our environment and high costs of cleaning efforts. Yet another EU myth, especially popular among tech bros btw.
Yeah - they did a survey on european beaches and checked which plastic items they were finding. And then they tried to find a way to solve the issue by regulating the production. They did find a lot of bottle caps and plastic q-tips and then they did something against that. That is a really good way of doing things.
The attached cap is also really convenient. Never have to worry about dropping, losing, or dirtying the cap
anti-EU narratives
I believe this one is anti musk
Maybe so, but why is it spreading BS about the tethered caps then? The same way anti-EU memes from tech bros?
Because ignorance? I guess when I weigh these two in my head, ignorance wins but idk
I think littering and contributing more plastic waste into the environment can definitely be considered part of a person’s carbon footprint. More indirectly than burning gasoline, but it reduces recycling and requires more manufacturing and natural resources than if the plastic wasn’t wasted/littered.
In any case, it’s a pretty big stretch to label this content as “Anti-EU”, at worst they used poor word choice to make their point.
If they had said “to protect the environment” instead of “to reduce my carbon footprint” it’s the exact same comic. Tesla/capitalism is the butt of the joke here
Considering littering part of someones carbon footprint is not entirely wrong but it is quite a stretch. The aim really is the littering, not the carbon footprint caused by the littering, at least that’s what the legislator communicated as goal.
It is not so much that the comic is “anti-EU” indeed, it is that it uses an anti-EU narrative. The tethered caps have been parts of a number of clearly anti-EU memes, usually from the right, some of them from the tech-bros.
No it would not be exactly the same comic. There is a reason they used “carbon footprint”. It strengthened the message of hypocrisy. I do not claim that Tesla/capitalism isn’t the butt of the joke here. If they had written “to protect the environment” I probably would have no issue with the comic. Then the tethered caps would not be presented in a way that people who don’t know about it would be mislead about the intention behind the tethered caps.
anti-EU narratives
A bit rich from someone who loudly proclaims Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is Ukraine’s fault.
That said, anti-EU memes using the tethered caps myth are commonly found on right populist sites, so no, it is not a conspiracy.
It’s the US fault actually, they’re nothing but body bags as Soros explained.
And they are found everywhere, sensible left-wing people who see these EU ghouls are destroying us and the extreme-right also.
It’s an idiotic stance to say when fascists say something it must automatically be not true.So you think the US is at fault for Russia deciding to invade Ukraine?
And you feel the EU is destroying an unspecified “us”?
Who do you blame for the US attacking Iran? What about Israel’s genocide on Palestinians?
Maybe I’m trying to make sense of the nonsensical, but I can’t say I’m following the reasoning of your worldview
Musk has perfected the art of bedazzling people with precision controlled compressed gaslighting.
That thing uses nitrogen to do that silly bunnyhop, but compressing all that nitrogen is what has the carbon footprint.
I could be done with solar power. Of all the criticism Musk deserves, the carbon footprint of a one-off show is not in the top 30.
Assuming the same number of panels, if you use X amount of solar power to do Y, then X amount of solar power isn’t available for something else and it has to use non-solar. The only thing that increases solar is adding more panels, rather than nitpicking which thing used the solar and which didn’t.
The use of energy generally is non-green as long as non-green is a major part of the energy market. Ascribing some end uses of energy as green or non-green is silly and wrong. It is only the production end that can be green or non-green. On the use end all energy is equal.
Is anyone else mortified by how such an obvious and blatant attention grab can so easily captivate the attention of literally every circle of the internet?
Everything I’ve seen has just been about how stupid this thing is.
I don’t know, maybe all attention is good attention.
You should look outside of lemmy. In my circle people are genuinely impressed.
Buy those in the circle some helmets.
Folks on YouTube seem unimpressed as well
I actually didn’t see any news on this except for some coworkers asking if I saw it. First time I saw it was yesterday… on lemmy. So maybe we should do better here and not talk about it, like at all? Delete this post and move on?
yea, they were discussing in a game im playing the other day, they actually believe it. if it wasnt an obvious distraction from MUSK TURNING OF STARSHIELD/LINK BY TELLING TRUMP TO DO IT.
They believe what? That there was a car using RCS thrusters to quasi-fly made by Tesla?
If you don’t believe that, then you’re detached from reality.
not really, they also launched a tesla to mars awhile back
Not really. They made an actual flying car, and that’s just plain awesome.
We know it’s an attention grab, that’s the entire point of doing a product demonstration. You’re not special for noticing that, in fact it’s so obvious most people don’t feel the need to comment on it.
They made an actual flying car
“flying” is doing a lot of those heavy lifting, like 2000kg lifting. It’s like saying Buzz Lightyear from Toys Story can fly.
You have to be in the air longer than Kitty Hawk to call it flying. I don’t make the rules…
That space convertible shows that it was an actually car with seats and everything. All the clips I’ve seen showed a sealed cockpit and tinted windows. So it could have esially been an empty frame with is lighter to do those stunts with
Yeah, I think it was basically the RCS unit from a Space-X rocket stuffed into a car-shaped frame with some parts from an electric golf cart glued in there to move it around on the wheels.
And smaller battery pack to compensate for the pressurised tank and a compliment for Melon Husk small dick.
This is a Flying Car. Musk has built a Fast and Furious jumping stunt car.
10 seconds of hovering ain’t exactly flying. It would have been impressive if they framed it as these are the thrusters we’ve been working on to help land on Mars, heres what we can do with them on a car.
Instead Musk just goes we can kick flip a car!!! The same presentation goes from interesting tech to eyerollingly cringe. Absolutely a cool tech but has no business being sold in a car road legal or not. It should stay a prototype tech demo.
but it made like five flips over the video! It makes for almost a minute of flying! /s-for-god’s-sake
“an actual flying car” “product demonstration” lmao
It’s neither a flying car nor a product that will ever be sold on the market. Crazy how gullible the average person is.
I bet you’re one of those people who insisted FSD was right around the corner 10 years ago.
There have been other flying cars
The caps are not attached to reduce our carbon footprint but to reduce overall pollution. I don’t like when people paint over such issues with a too-broad brush.
Also what idiocy did Me-me-me-lon come up with now?
Car that breaks your spine when you drive it
I like the caps being attached because it means you can’t lose the cap. It didn’t even occur to me that it might have to do with littering
Never in my life have I actually lost a cap, but I have been splashed in the face multiple times by those idiotic attached caps.
Me neither.
That said, up until they changed it, those metal flaps for opening beverage cans were a serious problem, and I could imagine that many consumers are less considerate than me wrt plastic caps as well.
It’s just a small part of the ongoing enshittification of real life products.
those metal flaps for opening beverage cans were a serious problem
wait what do you mean? are they changing those as well?
Orginially they were ripp-off caps. I find these literally everywhere while metal detecting…
No. I’m just old enough to remember that they did change for very similar reasons.
He built a wannabe K.I.T.T., I mean the jumping, no talking luckily. Also as fake as K.I.T.T. Its only purpose was to push the stock, like always and to do anything but a compact, cost efficient EV for the masses.
No talking? All the new cars have Grok built in unfortunately. They do, in fact, talk.
“Set the cabin temperature to 72 degrees.”
Car: “The holocaust didn’t happen”
I doubt that flying thing had much inside other than what was strictly required for that stunt.
It is, in fact, not a car. It’s a stunt vehicle that was disguised as a car.
Yeah, and I’m sure the production model in 2028 (or much, much later, knowing Elon), will be a slimmed down shadow of this thing. I’d feel bad for the sorry saps that fall for it, but they’ve clearly learned nothing over the past decade.
Now I seriously wonder what voice it talks in. Just the standard, bland stuff?
Or like Hal 9000 maybe? I’m not sure the K.I.T.T.s voice was all that memorable.
I hate to admit it, but I think I would actually like some very Elony choices. Unless he’s removed all vestiges of being a hapless nerd and only thinks in ragebait nazi anymore.Not that I ever wanted one of his, or in fact any talking car.
Found this video here: https://www.mirrorthevideo.com/watch?v=c1aeTb8-4DA
It honestly seems decently useful while driving to avoid interacting with any physical (or touchscreen…) controls, but it would be much cooler if it wasn’t in a Tesla and wasn’t
MechaHitlerGrok*
Have you looked at the price of a model 3 lately? They’re about the price of a moderately equipped Civic… You’re not wrong about the stock thing though
In Europe the model 3 costs double if what an entry level EVs cost. Sure, they have less range and stuff but that’s what I was talking about, some affordable entry level car that delivers the basics and not more.
Yeah same with environmental protection and climate friendly. Of course they are connected but nuclear energy for example is climate friendly but still bad for the environment.
And the people who aren’t precise enough about it are usually out to ridicule people who do care about the ecosphere.
Some bored telsa engineers got drunk with space x engineers, then Elon found out
ever wanted to drive on the ceiling, doing sick somersaults and corkscrews?
-
Heard it was just compressed air?
-
it’s about plastic pollution not carbon
-
But like, still, yeah… “pLaStIc StRaWs”
It is just compressed air, though it’s an insane amount of energy stored in that form. The number that will actually have that function will be so small that it probably doesn’t matter, though the emissions of car-centric transport are absolutely crazy. give me more trains!
Sorry, best we can do is reinvent a bus for the 50th time and make it get stuck at a red light.
I’m curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh. How much battery range will go to car RCS thrusters?
I’m curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh.
Compressed air is one of the most expensive ways of storing energy.
Scott Manley estimated it at around 45kWh, so about 2/3 of a charge. Not that much energy in the grand scheme of things, but not anywhere near practical either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4Qg-gkLNg&t=530
By car battery standards, an absurdly large amount of energy. And it’s released in a pretty inefficient manner. So not a good plan for EV range.
I don’t think you could reasonably use them on the road without harming people around you either (though Musk’s target audience may not be very concerned about that aspect).
I think it works for track usage / showing off to your wealthy friends. I have no clue how the flying version would work control wise, as you’d need to plan the entire flight ahead of time so it could verify it’s possible (before you take off down the Grand Canyon and run out of gas a few seconds later). Probably one of the reasons it’s not being sold to everyone.
Sounds reasonable to fill while charging, and It would be interesting for cliff falling
It’s a supercar, being practical isn’t the point.
EVERYTHING is better with more trains :)
They’re like pirates
Tesla and other EV companies tend to have a bunch of carbon credits earned (from being EV companies) which they sell to polluters for the right to pollute.
It earns EV companies a lot of money.
There’s this stupid incentive in the Netherlands now where people with an EV charger can get ERE certificates for every kWh they charge, which they can sell for money to the government (I believe). Oil companies then buy these certificates so they can pretend to be green.
And of course everyone with a charger wants this now (you do need a charger with certified meter), because for them it’s free money.
Don’t forget that oil companies go green only for oil production, the oil they produce is not counted.
The attached bottle caps are pretty stupid, but people who get unreasonably angry about it are even worse.
If the things piss people off so much, it barely take any effort to just pull them the fuck off the bottle.
Attached caps are there for a purpose. They work. So no, they are not stupid.
What is stupid is that comic which is completely misrepresenting what those attached caps are about to create a false hypocrisy to make fun of (about the caps probably even more than about the Tech bros).
It is strange, to see how it is taking up the same anti-EU propaganda usually spread by Tech bros. The attached caps solve a problem and that is that caps are one of the largest trash types on beaches and in forests. They are such a big issue because due to the small size they are also laboursome to clean. Attached caps considerably reduce the number of separated caps and also of trash as a whole ending up there. They don’t really cost more, don’t need more resources and you can use them just as easily, if you are not completely incapable of adapting to change on a most fundamental level.
And don’t forget, an animal is much less likely to eat a whole bottle with the cap attached than they are eating a bottle cap by mistake.
It’s just a win all around and the people who get angry about them are just selfish assholes.
It is really just the new banana myth really. Except that one could question trade quality standards maybe a bit more (but still have a hard time to argue how 27 different standards would be better than just one) but the caps really have just a lot of big advantages and basically no meaningful disadvantage. I mean, for those really phobic of attached caps, they can be easily removed if you are really into that.
What’s the banana myth?
So no, they are not stupid.
The purpose was to reduce plastic pollution. According to latest data, across entire EU beverage industry, the plastic usage for attached caps is around 200,000 tonnes, equaling to around 381 million kg CO2 increase and that’s not even taking in mind how much re-fitting and throwing out perfectly good manufacturing machines costs.
Initially I was supportive of this, but after experts around the EU started coming out about how bad of an idea this actually was… I don’t know man.
Bottle caps being attached is about the bottle and the cap being recycled/landfilled together instead of caps ending up in a different location. This works well with the return money you get for recycling bottles so everything gets disposed properly.
The general idea is that plastic in the environment is more of a problem than pollution from producing the little extra per bottle. Microplastics from plastics that don’t make it to the landfill are becoming a big issue and the EU is working on it.
Refitting machines to produce them is also not a big issue since that’s a one-time cost for not that many machines.
Fair points, but let’s say we use all this political effort and resources to fix plastic recycling itself and collection of trash.
Where do you see more positive effects?
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a “CO2 increase”. Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.
Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn’t enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn’t do anything for them, right?
Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
You could have spent 10 seconds googling this before typing all that. They literally do.
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense
You do know manufacturing is a major contributor to CO2, right? …right?
I don’t think posting a link to a sponsored article does help your argument.
Sponsored by…UNESDA. Literally the same association that fought for this in the first place. This helps my argument immensely.
“sponosored content” Do you have a source for your claims or only an ad?
Of course the beverage industry did not like it. It was new regulation while the only one benefitting being the environment, with less hard to ckean waste. That does nothing to raise their profits.
The comment made no sense not because it is unknown that production causes CO2 emmissions but because you threw in a single weight number without any reference and then drew from that a conclusion about increased CO2 emissions. The ad and its delivered to order contract study actually writes it more cohesively, interestingly. What I find fascinating is that you went for the max value instead if quoting the range in that ad. Apperently you considered the numbers in the ad not convincing enough.
Sponsored by UNESDA, the same association that fought for this in the first place. I picked the max value because it’s 9 months old data. Surely by now it’s even higher than the max.
Why are European associations and organizations writing such articles “an ad”? What exactly are they even advertising? That they themselves were wrong?
I dunno, I actually quite like them when I’m on the go and order a bottled drink, no way to lose the cap :)
Honestly when I first encountered one I hadn’t heard of the regulatory reasons for it and I just thought, “oh, neat”. I wonder how many people who complain about them were prevented from forming their own opinions by being told to hate it first.
I wonder how many people who complain about them were prevented from forming their own opinions by being told to hate it first.
That’s what I wonder about many many things these days.
I usually stick to water/tea/coffee, so when I buy something, I’m probably treating myself to a milkshake. I say this because it’s only a problem with thicker liquids and drinks that are shaken, but no matter what, that shit is dripping from the lid on my face or shirt, unless I drink in the most awkward angle or enact some uncouth acts with the lid first.
To be fair, the caps do piss me off when they mess up me pouring a drink for the 100th time. But yeah, I just pull them off. I never threw them out separately anyway (who tf would do that???).
Enough people to warrant the regulation apparently.
-
The Tesla flying car is clearly a Spectacle for Fools, but the gas being used is basically compressed air and doesn’t contribute to our greenhouse gas problem.
There’s plenty of other aspects to this to make fun of that are factually accurate.
deleted by creator
Mine does.
And even provides is own reaction mass
deleted by creator
No, you blow to compress air, you suck to decompress air.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure you blow
deleted by creator
It uses an electric compressor.
deleted by creator
Why are you responding in such a condescending tone? Was my reply in any way as rude? Do you hold all of your internet conversations by talking down to your fellow contributors? You don’t know who we are; you don’t have any right to reply like that. Grow up. Keep your “gold stars” and “walk step by step for you’s” to yourself. If you can’t be civil to strangers, then keep your opinions to yourself.
The compressed gas that “it” uses is compressed with electricity, yes.
…and yes, I realize the gas is not compressed onboard, and that the car doesn’t accomplish this on “its” own. I’m sorry my simpler phrasing upset you so. If I say “the car uses a DC power supply,” I don’t mean to imply that the car connects “itself” to the charger either. “It” (the car) utilizes a compressed gas source, which was electrically powered.
Sure, that minuscule amount of electricity could be generated by way of fossil fuel power plants, but seeing as how this is a Tesla demo, probably a one-off (assuming Musk is lying about delivering - as he usually is), and Tesla’s “gigafactory” uses a massive solar farm in addition to the local power grid (which may include fossil fuels), it’s nearly a wash. A tiny “carbon footprint,” if any at all. Hell, manufacturing those bottle lids probably generates a larger carbon footprint.
Like [@DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works]\ said, there are plenty of other aspects to this to make fun of. Arguing that the compressed gas is somehow contributing to its global footprint is stupid. But then, so is arguing with strangers on the internet.
deleted by creator
Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro
deleted by creator
Could also be Hydrazine. But that still would only result in nitrogen and hydrogen
Billionaires have no fucks to give about anything except mean tweets. They weirdly seem to care a hell of a lot about those.
So this Tesla rocket flying car thing I’m hearing about is actually taken seriously?
Like, actual human beings with brains actually believe this shit will happen? I mean, come on now… You have a brain, evolution given, please, use it?
This is another musk thing. Elmo tells obvious lies, his groupies will repeat it as fact ad nauseum, the news sites will obviously publish said nonsense as fact because of course, and three weeks later people will have forgotten about the next bullshit lie from Elmo. Rinse and repeat, he has pulled this bullshit off dozens of times now and he keeps getting away with it. Other people would have been sued into the ground but Elmo? Nope. I guess the guy has charisma or something (the something doing all the lifting because claiming that musk has charisma is just idiotic)
Lets not forget this gem from about 5 years ago
The fine print of the deposit agreement says that there’s no guarantee the car will ever be made.
yes, I would doubt about the brain part, but overall, yes
I don’t get the point of this comic tbh. I’m no Tesla apologist, but it’s compressed air. Besides we all know this is in no way really going to be widely available.
I’m also pretty sure the demo car doesn’t have a heavy battery with the full range. Probably stripped down to the absolute minimum weight to pull off these stunts
You can see the underside of the vehicle during the demo. It’s hollow with a metal lattice.
To be fair that’s probably by design. The demo roadster uses McMurty fan style or “active downforce”. How it works is that it sucks the air out from under the car creating a low pressure chamber under the car which makes the outside pressure force the car closer to the ground creating a lot of downforce and traction.
The fan design also made an appearance in F1 where it won a race and got instantly banned.
🤣
This is the E3 demo of car demos 😂
All of the energy used to create a stupid car kickflip is for something completely useless and waste of resources that are most likely polluting. That is being contrasted with the attached cap that is forced on people to reduce pollution while the rich fucks do whatever they want.
That’s not flying. That’s falling in style.
There is no way its legal for cars to fly around like that. The kill enough people on the ground I dont want them trying to kickflip over traffic.
Of course it’s not legal, even Tesla said so, why would this be something to question?
What’s obvious to some is a revelation to others, let them have their moment.
Im not putting it past America
The wildest part? It’ll (probably) kick flip over and into an accident; it’s not like the speed direction is going to change with those thrusters.
You know, like games where you go left to avoid something and right into another object or pit.
This comic has been posted in every single fucking community that’s even remotely relevant, and many that aren’t. We get it.
Also, it uses cold gas thrusters with compressed air as the propellant, so the carbon footprint is similar to driving any other EV.
so you are telling me that the energy to keep a car in the air is equivalent to move a car on wheels? hmmm interesting…
No carbon footprint if it uses solar, wind or nuclear energy.
That’s just straight up not true, you need to build the dammed things and that leaves s big footprint.
Okay so what do you want to do? Go back to the stone age? Get of your phone and follow the ways of Ted Kaczynski.
So it’s either out-of-control consumer production or back to stone age? No in between?
The in-between was disregarded over a nitpick for it not being “perfectly” carbon neutral.
That person would complain because the carbon footprint of my fart is too big.
How about just acknowledge the obvious downside and not making stuff up, dolt.
What downside? I really do not understand what you are talking about. Your only critique is that I said “no carbon footprint” instead of “a much smaller comparatively insignificant carbon footprint”, which in my opinion is just dishonest nitpicking.
no but I think the point was that the gas wasn’t compressed in the car, the same way the electricity wasn’t produced in the car, there’s no direct carbon emissions just indirect ones primarily from however that country is generating its electricity (as the air compressor that was used to charge it probably runs on mains electric)
The plan is for the vehicle to have an air compressor on board, I don’t know if the vehicle in the demo has it though.
But yes, compressed air is typically electricity with extra steps.
It’s a cool demo, but if I were holding Tesla stock I’d be kinda peeved
Yeah, because they’re obviously dumping a lot of engineering money into it, but it’s something that will never be practical, will probably never be legal to use on actual roads, and will never sell in any significant numbers.
Meanwhile the Chinese elites are flying around in personal drones. Actual flying vehicles.
In comparison the Tesla demo is like tying a horse to the front of a locomotive to show off the fastest horse in the world.
It’s quite sad how much him being involved in everything USA is holding us back.
Reminds me of when he sent one to space
Most Tesla investors are the kind to be impressed by such a stunt.
Musk made his fortune showing shiny things and making false promises to investors.
And you should be! Stock got a solid bump from this idiot demo and then dropped below opening price. :)
