Isn’t that a photo a perfect example of what happens when we let private institutions provide public services (which is what you’re suggesting be done instead).

Are you trying to say that things would be better if elementary and High school also had to be paid for directly instead of being publicly funded?

Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.

What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.

To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:

• trickle down economics, the idea that business will pass on additional profits to employees.
• business will regulate themselves and ensure consumer safety.
• business will happily provide the same infrastructure and services that we current fund through taxes for free or cheaper than it’s costs us right now to provide those services.

Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.

I would love to see the math behind that. Typically it’s a case where someone is effectively paying 25% of their income to taxes, but because they are too lazy to actually understand how taxes work they are easily convinced it’s well over 50%

We don’t need to even do the math ourselves. It’s already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I’m surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

What? You’re the one claiming that various metals aren’t infinitely recyclable.

It’s true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn’t really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I’m just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn’t need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it’s useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you’re being downvoted.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can’t get over this. We’re talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you’re talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that’s what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that’s it’s my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.

Publish date “2019” ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn’t anymore.

The methodology of this study isn’t very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

If they could somehow make this data available to search engines. Maybe we can start being able to google random problems and actually find solutions again.

How are EVs not the solution for people who need vehicles?

Everytime I hear this, the response is “we need better public transit, and EVs for all the people who can’t effectively be serviced by public transit”

Which is like sure, if we had more money we could solve both, and many places are trying to solve public transit (but it’s slow and expensive to do right).

EVs are part of the solution. But there are many parts to this solution. Pretending that EVs aren’t needed doesn’t actually help at all.

I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.

I’m saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.

If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.

So if you’re looking for a Cola, you have options.

If you’re looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don’t need to buy a new game system to play it.

If you’re looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don’t have options, you need to buy a Switch.

If you’re looking to watch Ozarks, you don’t have options, you can only watch Netflix.

If you’re looking to just have something playing on TV and don’t really care what it is, you have options.

If you’re looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.

If you’re looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.

If you’re looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.

Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you’re in.

Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can’t look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it’s harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).

This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you’re forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren’t really competing with the butcher.

I still think you’re looking at competition slightly wrong.

Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola’s). But overall competition is working.

Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you’re an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!

The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.

It’s only competition if they provide similar products.

The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don’t really directly compete with eachother.

This isn’t completely true, but it is the current standard.

A website can detect and block many user/password attempts from the same IP and block IPs that are suspicious.

Websites can detect elivated login fails across many IPs are react accordingly (It may be reasonable to block all logins for a time if they detect an attack like this)

I’m sure there are other strategies, I don’t know how often they are actually employed, but I wish companies would start taking this sort of attack more seriously (even if it’s not at all hacking)