Wieldable4640

Most homes in the EU have a three phase connection and can support 22kW wall charging.

Homes in the EU can draw more power than homes in the US as we use 240V with the same amount of amps. That’s also part of the reason why we use kettles as we can boil water roughly 2x faster (they can draw up to 3kW while operating!)

Americans pay more for worse outcomes, so this is clearly a political/priorities issue, not an issue with wealth.

Other counterexamples are the other European countries with the same safety net which are not petro states (they do have colonial wealth though).

A lot of this was possible because of high corporate taxes and high marginal taxes on high incomes, so in theory this model could apply in most places.

What a lot of people find refreshing in podcasts, etc. is that they don’t hide their biases. They might tell the truth, or maybe they lie, but at least they tell you (or clearly signal) their position.

People I’ve spoken to are sick of media that pretends to be neutral, while they are clearly serving the interests of the rich. In that sense it’s really refreshing to have someone tell you what they really think.

I don’t have any solutions, but I can certainly understand the thought process.

I agree with you, although I would put it differently.

Learning requires feedback, not necessarily failure. The issue with watching a video is not that you can’t fail, you can certainly fail to get the point made in a video, but as you can’t get any feedback it would be hard to figure out that you didn’t get it.

In my view the difference between watching a video, vs trying to implement an idea as code is the direct feedback you get. If you’re wrong or made a mistake, you’ll know and can adjust your mental model accordingly.

It’s also what I like about writing code, if a colleague and I disagree we can just design a test together and find out and learn together.

The argument being made is that once people are tearing out nails you’d tell them you’re the Easter bunny if you believe that that’ll make them stop.

You’d tell them that you’re guilty even though you are innocent because you’d want the pain to stop.

That’s why people say that confessions gained via torture are not reliable.

Dutch bicycle infrastructure didn’t just happen, our postwar governments were all set on building car infrastructure. They were even planning to demolish huge parts of old Amsterdam to build a highway right through the city. It took two decades of protest and a lot of traffic deaths before the government started the development of dedicated bicycle infrastructure in the 1980’s. You can read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

Amsterdam’s answer to faster vehicles is to move them to the main road with other faster traffic. Although it is now moving to slow down nearly all traffic inside the city to a 30km/h limit, which will improve cyclist safety a lot.

Turning the power off would work, but is that feasible? Even if we’d be able to spot the CME, would then have enough time left to shut down the entire power grid?

The time between detection and the CME hitting us would probably be measured in minutes. I don’t think it’s possible to shut down the grid in that timeframe.

Historically being fat was a signifier of wealth, as it implies that you can afford a lot of food. Some cultures also see it as a sign of fertility. This was also the case in the Western world until recently.

Another well known historical signifier for wealth was fair skin. As you wouldn’t get a tan if you didn’t have to labour out in the sun.

It seems to flow from the idea that “might makes right”, but you replace might with money.

If you make money you’re doing well. That idea can be extended to imply that being poor means you’ve done something wrong.

To me it echoes feudalist ideas like divine rule. The king deserved to be king, otherwise God would not have allowed him to be king. Therefore the king must be good.

In my opinion this way of thinking is formed by looking at existing hierarchies and retroactively defining morality based on those hierarchies. Which then leads to the idea that poor people must be poor because of something they did, how could the hierarchy exist otherwise?

This line of thinking also leads to the opinion that rich people do better, which does not consider that poor people might be doing the best they can under their circumstances, even if it is not the optimal strategy.