pille

I found one write-up investigating this a few months ago:

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.

We now have to remember lots of passwords. That’s pretty much the same memorization job.

> 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.

Could you share a link to this Lancet article?

> the authors haven't retracted anything

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If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness.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.

Worth repeating that this study was retracted. Authors failed to disclose a conflict of interest in their funding from the tobacco industry:

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/57/3/2002144

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.

I think we agree on all of this. I was just pointing to what I think is the mechanism that promotes the stupidity.

It’s certainly worse in the US than it is in Germany. That much is clear.

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.

It was either forcefully vaccinated or forcefully infected by the unvaccinated. I’m thankful we’re making the right choice.

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.

Maybe because used cars cost/risk about 1% as much as houses?

At least one study making such a claim was retracted for not disclosing the authors’ financial ties to the tobacco industry.

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/57/3/2002144

Knowing the industry is secretly pushing favorable coverage, I’m treating claims like this with more skepticism.

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.

How so? We already require vaccinations for other diseases and it’s clearly been effective against them.

This is also about what’s coming out of their bodies and going into others’.

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.

One source, just after a quick search: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians20

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.

I think there’s a lot of ground between the current War on Drugs, and 7-11 selling meth and heroin.

But doesn’t 7-11 already sell alcohol, and even in potentially lethal amounts?

> Alcohol is however generally not defined as a hard drug

> Scientists could/do define the risk profiles for different drugs

The scientific risk profiles I've read have alcohol right up there on the top of the ranking for hardest, most damaging drugs. Sometimes it's at #1, but it's always right there in the big 4 with cocaine, heroin, and meth.

"Not defined as a hard drug" is a policy choice, almost entirely because of cultural/historic reasons, as you point out. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and it's not working for other drugs.

DUIs, on the other hand... harsh prosecution of DUIs is fine because they're crimes with victims, where other people are put into serious and immediate danger. That's a better approach than the overly broad, costly, and ineffective policy of simply incarcerating everyone for drug use.

I think that argument falls apart as soon as you consider alcohol. Alcohol certainly qualifies as a hard drug, based on its impact for both users and bystanders (especially in your example with driving). We tried to ban it and that made things worse.

Also, isn't imprisoning people a huge cost itself?

In this case the victims would be the workers. So you could either buy the company out, nationalize it, or let it go bankrupt and pay the employees directly.

None of those solutions incentivize the kidnapper like a ransom payment (bailout, no strings) does, and they’re likely cheaper.

Why would we simply say that? I’m in Germany and I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

The free market itself is the result of some govt officials' design, and plenty of polical games.

"Free market" isn't really the right term for this method of price discovery when life and limb is on the line. "Highway robbery" might be more appropriate.

Lots of people with litte money are a dramatic increase in the labor supply, pretty much by definition?

I’m not sure what other evidence you’d be looking for.

Unfortunately I think the German bad actors would continue with their business as usual.

German companies like this prefer to treat recurring billing to a cancelled credit card as a delinquent account. They'll keep the service 'active' nominally, but refer payment to a collections agency ("Inkasso"), who will then send bills, threatening letters from lawyers, and bills for the threatening letters from lawyers. Worst of all, it seems like German law is a-ok with this practice.

You pass more effective labor protections, and then stop letting employers get around them just because they hired undocumented workers. You prosecute employers for exploiting a vulnerable labor force, instead of charging the people being exploited.

This seems like the truly left position to me. I heard Clinton mention it once in the 3rd debate, but for some reason people focused on other stuff.

Right, but I guess technically if he exercises the options, he’d own stock he could never sell?

I know options are usually just cleared and pay out the difference if they’re in the money, but I don’t know if that’s how it’s seen legally.