Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.
> It’s telling to me that the most-watched shows on these networks are often sitcoms from the 90s and 00s, despite a mountain of newer content going unnoticed.
There was also huge glut of forgettable content back then. Most 90s and 00s shows were low quality crap too. No one is watching those now. The handful of shows that survived and made it onto today’s streaming services are the greatest of that era.
Why would you trust the authors, though? They really should know better. To me, the omission is either the product of general incompetence (they forgot?), or intent to deceive. Both of those seem pretty disqualifying.
I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.
The tobacco industry has a rich history of trying to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and this article and authors’ undisclosed conflict of interest fits that pattern well: a study shows cigarettes are actually good for you in some way, and might even save you from the current pandemic; and then whoops, authors were getting paid by the tobacco industry, and then whoops again, they didn’t mention it when submitting for publication.
If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness. The most generous reading is that the retraction was made out of an abundance of caution and concern for the journal’s reputation. I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t see any further evidence in favor of exonerating the article, especially knowing the industry’s history.
It’s been discussed to death, literally. It’s hard to believe you’re asking for a discussion in good faith, when there’s clearly no evidence on your side, and your baseless “skepticism” has been indulged for almost 2 full years by the government and media. The outgoing German government bent over backwards for you Querdenker, and that’s why we’re still in this mess.
You’re simply wrong. You’re entitled to your wrong opinion, but you’re no longer entitled to force the rest of us to suffer for it.
A vaccine mandate has about 80% support in Germany. OP is axe-grinding for a pretty small minority here.
I don’t know if people are generally any more stupid now. I think it’s just that our media elevates these uninformed voices and amplifies these stupid points of view, treating both sides as possibly right, when one is so obviously wrong.
But meth is already illegal, and your neighborhood is still in that situation. That sounds awful, but not really like a reason for sticking with the current policy.
I can’t speak for everyone, but that’s certainly a technical part of it. Another big part of the problem is that it’s insulting to presume everyone guilty, and make them to use their own resources (own phone, own battery cycles) to investigate them as if they were suspects. But that’s been discussed plenty on other threads here at HN.
I realized this additional perverse thing about trying to improve the world by riding a bike, as an individual:
In our market economy designed to get people to consume cars, your foregoing car ownership actually just makes it a little more comfortable for all the car owners out there sharing the road with you. You reduce traffic for them, reduce the wear on the infrastructure, you drive down the price of cars and gas, and you free up a parking space.
Of course this is all on the infinitesimal scale of your own individual influence on the world, its ecosystem, and the economy you live in, but so is your actual reduction in fossil fuel consumption if you give up driving.
Point is, there needs to be something a lot bigger than your individual choice as a consumer. We need an economy that prices in the environmental impact of cars, and I’m pretty sure we need the state for that.
The "bigger, heavier" part does indeed seem to be a tradeoff. It's been blamed for a significanted rise in pedestrian fatalities, even as vehicles get safer for the people inside.
I don't think GP was saying that landlords keep hoards of miserable homeless people just outside the property, in order to scare tenants into paying their rent. People are plenty aware of economic reality.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electric-vehicles-...
Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.