No thank you: I don't care for content that's searching for evidence to support a preconcieved position. There is too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in this space.
I already get enough of their content on HN to recognize dogma when I see it. Quite frankly, it's a circlejerk where everyone else is wrong unless they follow the ST-scene's ideologically-founded prescriptions, and if you post evidence to the contrary you'll often get shouted down.
> That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people!
That's a semantic argument that doesn't address the real problems that skimping on commuter infrastructure can cause. San Francisco and Seattle have both achieved some of the highest housing prices in the nation thanks to chronic underinvestment in highway infrastructure.
You can't conduct commerce on a bike. Anti-car policies are also closely coupled with inflated housing prices, since they effectively reduce the available housing supply by requiring employees to commute from within public transit distance of their job.
Are you able to achieve a 10000x efficiency improvement vs natural photosynthesis by using those technologies? If not, the idea is still completely unfeasible.
US farmland occupies 895 million acres (3.6M km^2) [1]. Average solar irradiance on most US farmland is about 200 W/m^2 [2]. By being generous and assuming vertical farming is 100x more efficient than natural photosynthesis, the energy requirements come out to 7.2 terawatts of generating capacity. In contrast, the US currently has 1.1 terawatts of generating capacity. [3] Vertical farming isn't just uneconomical: it's completely absurd.
If you choose to ignore the example I just gave, that's on you, but luckily I can provide additional examples from the last few years:
- bans on legal ownership of certain types of firearms while simultaneously weakening firearms penalties for the primary types of gun violence: gang and drug crimes
- using lawsuits and legal harassment to shut down right leaning personalities, businesses, and institutions
- selective prosecution by activist DAs, depending on political alignment
Shall I list more? And, again, these are supposed to be things that you feel are justified, but the right does not, because that's the purpose of lawfare.
Punishment is in the eye of the beholder: the left and right don't care about the same issues, and that's the principle that makes it possible to hurt your opponent through lawfare without hurting yourself. Eliminating federal protections for abortions annoys the left without hurting the right. Conversely, banning religious services during covid while promoting protest gatherings bothered the right, but not the left. You wouldn't be able to list the lawfare issues that bothered the right, because that's the point. Lawfare is only lawfare to your opponent, not to yourself.
The premise of lawfare is that you enact laws and legal precedents primarily with intent of undermining your opponent, rather than to benefit anyone in particular. The American right just realized that they can do this too.
You know, somehow I just have a hard time getting behind the most numerically murderous ideology in the history of the planet. Communist periodicals have just as much business being on HN as their nazi counterparts: none.
Don't be so dismissive: it's a legitimate concern. These are the same western governments that are already trying to clamp down on internet content they don't like: e.g. pornography, encryption, etc.
I already get enough of their content on HN to recognize dogma when I see it. Quite frankly, it's a circlejerk where everyone else is wrong unless they follow the ST-scene's ideologically-founded prescriptions, and if you post evidence to the contrary you'll often get shouted down.