khepri @ khepri @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

72

Joined

2 yr. ago

Point well taken, but I'd say getting the US Congress to agree to things that inconvenience the rich might be an exception. I really wish we could get the ball rolling on that in a self-sustaining, self-amplifying way that compounded to larger and larger changes and more and more public support. But that just isn't how my government has worked in my lifetime in my experience.

I'm all for taxing and regulating the hell out of these totally unneeded luxuries, but air travel is 2% of global emissions, and private jets are 2% of that. They are a pure luxury, and so are a good target for emissions reduction, but this would be just one of hundreds of similarly-sized initiatives needed to move the needle at this point. It's also not a "soft target" since we'd have to take something away from the rich that they like, which costs a lot of time and political capital that then can't be used elsewhere, perhaps to greater impact.

Yes, they certainly have to meet requirements for air exchange. And if you define "airtightness" as that, then yes, the ones that met that definition met that definition. What they are not is the common definition of airtightness, as in a sealed glass jar, steel can, scuba tank, or submarine, which if you look at the comments here was what was confusing a lot of people. I don't think anyone was contending that there aren't tests that these houses have to pass, just that the word airtightness, as understood by laypeople, isn't an accurate term to describe these homes.

They aren't "airtight", that would awful. They are well-insulated and designed to take advantage of passive solar heating and air exchange cooling. The way roofs and windows and orientation on the land is usually done for western homes is just terribly inefficient for capturing and releasing heat in the right ways. Just some thick walls, a bank of windows facing the sunrise ,and some proper roof vents that can be opened when it's hot is all most passive houses really are.

Yeah, it's much more like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing than a trap. Or a "backed yourself in to a corner" you might say, or, "completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it". But it's only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a 'trap'

Well its a good thing no famous or political person has ever been on trial then because obviously no jury on earth could handle that fairly if it ever were to happen. I think voir dire exists mainly to make sure that folks who think like that never make it on to juries. Just because some people couldn't render an impartial verdict on a politician they had an opinion of doesn't make it impossible for lawyers and judges to find a jury capable of doing so. People like that exist, and lawyers find them for trials all the time, I promise you.

Absolutely right. "Impartial" doesn't mean you've never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don't live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven't heard or believe things about what they've done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you've let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It's a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge "the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can't get a fair trial!!" Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as "too famous" for justice, there is no such thing as "too infamous" for justice. And there is no such thing as "the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I've done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts."

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if "I'm too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers" was a defense?

And I'm sure that's true to your personal experience. But I hope you'll accept that for millions of Americans, we feel like one side wants to criminalize our very existence and way of life, and one side does not. Corruption aside, which I can agree is rampant across the spectrum, one side is openly questioning whether entire groups of people should be allowed to live out their lives enjoying the same freedoms as the rest of us, and that, for me, is important.

It's my right to have my personal computer display what I want it to display. It's my right set my device to reject internet traffic I don't want to receive. It's my right to instruct my machine to download the data I want, and refuse to download the data I don't want. If you make something publicly available online, then the public can consume that or refuse that, in part or in whole, as and when they wish. If a company or a browser wants to try and interfere with that, then they've chosen their fate.

Yeah, even most of the judges he appointed, who he no doubt hoped would be in his pocket forever, seem to recognize that supporting Trump, the way he'd like to be supported, in an actual legal proceeding, would be weapons-grade stupid for them. Trump has an outside chance at another 4 years, maybe, whereas these judges are on the bench for life in most cases, and most of them get that they'll have to be able to operate in future administrations rather than burn their careers for this dumbdumb the way he gets his lawyers to do.

Can't argue with that, but it's a bit like saying that the surface of the Sun and a day at the beach are both hot. Like, I can't argue with you because of how you stated it, but there are matters of degrees in both cases.

well looks like this is going to get pretty bad...How is it the responsibility of platforms to take care of your children for you? It's not school, it's not daycare, it's the internet. Does the electric company have some moral or legal obligation to keep your children from jamming a fork in the outlet? Does a public beach need staff on hand to keep children from digging dangerously large sand tunnels that could collapse? Is it up to the water company to provide your child with special means of not flooding your basement? If we need this for some reason, why don't we need to force manufacturers to create cars that won't start for under-16's, windows in high buildings that you have to be 18 to open, or headphones that won't get too loud unless you enter your date of birth? This is some Footloose-level bullshit and I just do not get it I guess.

We should all take this textbook example of sock puppetry to heart. I'm sorry, but there just aren't "progressive leftist types" who are also "it's the working class, straight, middle-aged white men who are the

<real>