I’m talking about millions of occurrences of this edge case a day.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to fight. I said multiple times that we should continue to encourage and expand our use of electric vehicles. But to blindly fanboy electric cars without being able to honestly admit that we have some improvements to make just makes you stupid and smug.

This is incredibly short sighted. I usually bring my own food on a long trip because I dislike stopping or buying crappy food. I eat while driving on long road trips because I have a schedule and want to get where I’m going. My gas car gets double the range of an electric car, so I’m stopping less often as well. I’m often in places where getting gas or food isn’t within an hour’s drive, and almost none of those places have the ability to charge a vehicle anyway.

Look, everyone has different use cases. I think electric cars for the in-city drive around town use case are great, and we should continue to encourage their use. I’m just saying that for wider adoption we’re going to have to solve the charge rate, range, and charger accessibility issues.

So your electric car has more range than a similarly sized gas car? Unlikely.

Given both vehicles start at “full”, drive until you have low range left. Now talk about convenience of filling up in the middle of nowhere, or when in a hurry.

Is this use case common for everyone? Definitely not, but I run into it a few times a month.

99.99% of people they are never in a single day going to drive beyond their cars range, meaning even a standard level 1 slow charger over night at home can manage their

You’re saying 1 in 10,000 people will never drive more than ~200 miles in a single day? What country is that statistic for? Source?

I love the idea of rail, but it doesn’t work in large spread out countries like where I live. Sure cities can be connected, and we should definitely do that, but the idea that I could get to all the natural and wild places I love in this beautiful country by taking mass transit is impossible.

I’m not at home sleeping when I’m out traveling. I’m referring to multi hour or multi day drives. This is an extremely common use case where I live.

Also not everyone has access to a charger where they sleep.

And then wait an hour to get acceptable charge levels for range. Filling up at a gas station is much faster.

This is not to say electric vehicles aren’t a good idea, the charge rate and convenience while traveling are issues we need to improve on.

Papaya salad is my absolute favorite Thai dish.

Very few people do, that’s certainly true.

I hunt for a large percentage of the meat I consume, and I use every part of the animal I can. Can’t eat hide, horns, hooves, or feathers, and nuero tissue is inadvisable. But nearly everything else gets used in my house, including organs and bones.

It’s pretty clear to me given the cops shooting, then shouting orders, and Mr. Pink saying he’s been shot, that he does not in fact get away.

I know there’s theories on the Internet about this, and he may not have died, but at the very least he’s been caught and does not keep the diamonds.

None of the thieves got away at the end of Reservoir Dogs.

This is not to say that “good” triumphed at the end either.

I’m not really a fan of the 1984 Dune, but David Lynch is a cinematic genius, and a madman.

if you have the right butcher.

Costco

What’s to stop you from voting multiple times? Or voting as someone else? Or someone else voting as you? That last one actually happened to me during a presidential election in my home state.

I don’t think it was part of some deep state plot to steal my vote, I’m betting some distracted volunteer at the polling place accidentally crossed off the wrong name and handed someone else my ballot. But still, it seems to me that if we can give out free IDs (which is a thing in my state) then there’s no downside in checking them during voting in person.

Oh wow, thanks for putting so much thought into your replies! Aside from the couple times you’ve resorted to insults I’ve really enjoyed our back and forth conversation. It’s been a mostly good faith exchange.

I know some Internet person isn’t going to change your closely held beliefs in a random thread, so I’m not going to try to do that. I also admit that many of my beliefs are inconsistent with most of what is to be found in places like this, so I don’t take it personally when I’m met with vehement disagreement.

Nationalised industries do not need to profit

What may have gone unnoticed is that I used the word “quality”. In my experience no quality good or service has ever been provided by a large entity (government, corporation, etc…) without profit motive. National parks in the US are close, but mostly because governmental benign neglect is as close to the natural state as we get, so doing very little is doing very little harm to a system that without human participation would be in equilibrium.

Industries that do not have profit motive operate on altruism or largesse (sometimes both). Altruism cannot run high quality national scale entities, there just aren’t enough folks who reject profit while still doing their best work. Largesse can run small and large operations, but at national government scale they become so wasteful that delivering quality becomes impossible. This is where my comment about nationalized housing stock being equivalent to the projects came from.

The mythical large government who cares about their people and delivers high quality services at scale has not, nor ever will, exist.

Are you… really gonna pretend you’ve never heard of landlords

No. But I also refuse to pretend that all landlords are evil by definition. I think PE funds and foreign nationals probably have motives which do not align with those of their renters, or the overall improvement of the quality of life in the US, so large scale ownership of domestic housing stock by entities like those poses issues, which I’ve already said we should address. But I have no problem with a small shop owning a handful of units, and seeking to make a profit.

You’re a fucking landlord, aren’t you?

Not unless you count me owning the home I live in as being my own landlord.

it could only happen under a government that genuinely wants to and can work for the people.

I think this situation is possible, but not at national scale.

When did I say there’s “no way up”?

When you implied individuals cannot succeed and instead must appeal to a higher power (national scale government) which has zero evidence that it has ever existed.

You are the one saying it’s impossible, not me. You are the one saying there’s no hope for change.

I’m saying that Internet echo chamber groupthink pushing for larger government is what will not work. There’s hope for change, but people have to be accountable to themselves first.

I agree that we should prioritize quality of life for everyone, and we must take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Doing those things requires large scale solutions, no doubt about it. It’s just doubtful that nationalizing the entire housing stock will achieve those ends.

Quality housing can’t be free. If there’s a cost, then someone is profiting. Whether that’s a corrupt government or whoever the landlord boogyman is you’re targeting, it doesn’t matter.

I’m not parroting any “talking points” for corporate giants, you need to get out more. Popular culture and echo chambers like this one might have you beaten down and convinced there’s no way up, but that’s what they want you to believe. Hopeless drones are easier to control than thinking humans. If you take control of your life at least you can be responsible for the outcome.

Personally even if I don’t succeed, I find the prospect of self determinism preferable to waiting for a benevolent government to miracle my way to a better life. Large government does not exist to serve the regular person, it will grind you beneath its feet as assuredly as any corporate entity.

You posted:

Actual nationalisation would be handled by a government that gives a shit about it. So far we have seen this happen in the early Soviet union and in China.

Those are examples of strong central governments. “Nationalise” means taking control on a national scale, necessarily requiring a central government.

Why are they choosing where people live?

If the government has a monopoly on the housing stock, then individuals cannot choose what to build or how to permanently modify it since they cannot own their domicile. I was talking less about the geography of where people would live under a nationalized scheme, and more about what the effect on individual choice non-ownership would have.

only a paranoid mind assumes nationalisation would lead to either.

This might be true, but my experience with government run housing bears it out.

you are defending landlords. Why? They don’t benefit you.

I will not attempt to defend large corporations and hedge funds owning housing stock. I’m an individual homeowner, so I’m looking out for those who, through some mix of hard work and/or luck, have chosen to own their homes.

I benefit from choosing how I live, where I live, what my home is like, and from accumulating equity. I want to preserve that opportunity for other hard working free people.

As I stated in my first comment, we can certainly improve how we manage housing stock and make it available. Foreign corporations and shadowy hedge funds driving up pricing, and governments manipulating values through tampering with interest rates are places I think we should start looking.

Nationalizing the whole of our housing stock? Nah, I’ll pass.

This entire thread is in response to you posting

Nationalise housing

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I’m pretty sure that means you want a strong central government to take control of the entire housing stock, thus controlling where everyone calls home?

I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make, but I’m pretty happy with my fully “private” housing situation. There’s no way in hell I’d want anyone, government or otherwise, controlling where I sleep.

So I guess we agree?

No fucker wants that, and you’re disingenuous for suggesting they do, or that nationalisation of housing means that

I’m not saying anyone wants to turn all housing into the projects. I’m saying it’s inevitable given how national and local governments have managed housing in my experience.

You think nationalisation of housing happens without a government competent enough to do it?

Maybe? IMO all lifelong government bureaucrats are corrupt and/or incompetent, and the result of putting them in charge of housing everyone would be horrific.

You might as well complain about buses because they don’t work without wheels.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re attempting to get at with this statement. I will say as a lifelong user of public transportation in my metropolitan area the buses and trains post-COVID have been nightmarish.

I love reading comments like these.

Yes, let’s turn an entire country’s housing stock into the projects.

There’s got to be a better way to provide housing than whatever we’re doing now, but putting an inept government, run by corrupt or otherwise incompetent career bureaucrats, in charge of the roof over my head would be a hilarious joke if people weren’t being completely earnest about it.