The thing is that cars are deeply intertwined with other sources of emissions that are much bigger than them, and realistically those other sources can’t be practically dealt with while cars are so prevalent, or at least, dealing with them are much easier in a less car dependent society.
Consider something like oil fractions, when oil is refined you get gasoline, but also fuel oil, diesel, kerosene, bitumen, and others. The production of any one of those is buoyed by the production of the rest, and you can’t do much to control the ratios you’re getting. As long as gas demand is high, all the others will be produced as well, and if they are produced, people will find a use to burn them. Airlines become more fuel efficient or decrease traffic; Previously cost prohibitive uses for kerosene become viable as the price drops due to a consistent supply and a reduced demand from high value airline consumers.
For a serious reduction in oil use, every element of it needs to be reduced in tandem so that the value of no one fraction can keep production high.
I doubt Canada would ever stop taking American asylum seekers due to Canadian public resentment of the American government.
Like, even if you want to assume purely cynical motivations, taking in those who are the targets of regime in opposition to you is grade a propaganda fodder.
And from a more honest perspective, the average Canadian is probably very understanding that anyone running from the regime is probably not someone who put it in power, and is thus very much on their side in the whole situation.
Canada is, in general, extremely welcoming of immigrants, even those from extremely disparate cultures. A huge influx of people of a very similar culture is not going to generate any sort of major backlash from even conservative elements.
The only really pressure point is probably going to be housing supply, but that’s an issue to be dealt with, not a reason to deny refugees entry, if it was, they wouldn’t be welcoming immigrants at one of the highest rates in the world.
Money for campaigns is important, but it's a force multiplier. If there is no force of voters to multiply, it is worthless.
Also those people in the back rooms are going to have a lot less money to throw around now, big donors don't want to give their money to campaigns that have no chance of winning, what good good is buying influence with a politician if that politician has no influence to sell? I don't think all that money will flow over to progressives suddenly, but the gap in budget is going to be much smaller now.
Exactly, it's not the job of the voters to convince a party their interests are worth pursing, it is the job of the party to convince voters that they will pursue their interests.
Donor money alone can not win an election and a failure to engage with voters will sure as hell lose it.
I think the current Russian leadership has this detached fantasy of what America's far right are like, this idea that they're homebody rural folks who just want to keep to them selves and that if they're in charge the US will disengage it's self from the rest of the world, leaving Russia to treat Eastern Europe as a playground for their imperialism.
But the thing is, it ignores the agency of the eastern Europe to oppose them, and it ignores the fact that the the US far right is fundamentally narcissistic and egomaniacal. Ultimately the far right of the US will stay engaged in eastern Europe because they will perceive Russia telling them to get out as an insult and a humiliation. The only way the far right would disengage would be if they could frame it as them "winning" and that framing would be perceived as an insult and humiliation to the Russian leadership, so they won't allow it.
So they will come to genuinely hate each other. I don't think this will lead to the US far right suddenly deciding they care deeply about the well being of eastern Europe, but they also aren't going to disengage completely.
I mean, I think a big part of it is foreign influence efforts landing very strongly with dissenting groups in the US. Then forging influence networks using the extant distrust for the US’s government to dismiss nuance that would paint their patrons in a bad light.
Yah, that’s why people call them tankies. Any criticism of the USSR, or even acknowledging why people criticize it, is a banable offense.
The term tankie get’s thrown around a lot, to the point of dilution, but the origin of it comes from western communist who defended the Soviet Union putting down the 1956 Hungarian revolution, notably using T-54/55 tanks. It later came to mean western communist that would ignore or downplay any criticism of the USSR, as “propaganda”. These days it could even be applied more broadly to “People who call them selves left wing or communists but who will defend the actions of any authoritarian regime so long as it is notionally in opposition to the US and it’s allies” IE people who defended Assad and Putin.
I think hexbear fits even a fairly narrow older definition. Which is why most major instances are defederated from them.
Traditionally carrots were used as the main sweetener in carrot cake. Something developed during lean times when honey, fruits and sugar weren’t available. So assuming this person was looking for a “low sugar cake” recipe, they may have found a carrot cake recipe that only used carrots for sweetening.
… and then they removed the carrots to reduce the sugar content further. So yah it’s going to be an awful cake if there is zero sweetness in it. Like, just make a savory baked good at that point.
Like it’s definitely a different thing, but it’s the same general concept, gonna have a wildly different flavor but fill the same kind of culinary niche.
Replacing carrot with kale in a freaking carrot cake is like replacing basil with potatoes.
I mean, carrots do have a lot of sugar as vegetables go, but it’s like 5% sugar by weight. If you’re cutting out stuff with that low of a ratio, you’re probably taking a low sugar diet a bit far.
I think it’s a suck cost thing at this point for a lot of investors.
Like, they need it to be a hyper growth market. They’ve had to many false starts in recent years, and this one seemed so promising to them. They poured so much fucking money in to building data centers for it. They can’t afford for it to turn out to just be a novelty with niche uses cases in specific fields. The entire US economy, top to bottom, is massively over leveraged on every front, if this doesn’t print money, there isn’t the capital needed for another big investing spree.
9mm? Clearly you mean .35 or .38 .