notsoshaihulud @ notsoshaihulud @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

174

Joined

4 wk. ago

The non-violent alternative is for the left is to do an economic coup by halting consumption.

agree. the main idea is to shift away from buying new to buying used, bartering, using cash. there's such abundance of used goods in the US people actually wouldn't have to compromise their lifestyles and this could continue on for months and months and months.

OK, so what can we do to support Mills and Maine?

Thanks edited my OP to advertise this. i like passive resistance, it takes much fewer resources, non-violent etc.

but a lot of the demand can be met by buying used stuff

haha, awesome metric of bullshit:)

Firstly, the covid pandemic was a multi year event.

The initial shocks happened in the first 3 months.

Secondly, publicly traded companies were enriched greatly from that time. Also it wasn’t conscious degrowth or a lack of ability, it was supply chain issues that caused products not to be available for purchase.

Yup, that's why the control here is in the consumers' hand and again, it's sort of like reducing your consumption so it starts hitting the metrics enough for corporations to realize the risks.

I already barely buy shit. I’ve always said “if the economy hinged on my purchasing habit, the country would go bankrupt”.

well, you're already part of the movement:)

should all buy less and be more mindful of where our money goes. I think we should buy locally and promote businesses that you agree with on levels beyond the value of the good or services they offer as often as possible. However, I don’t think we can effectively protest this way unless it was a true lifestyle change for a large portion of the country.

I'd disagree, we saw it with COVID how vulnerable corporations are. They'll always focus on stock buybacks and stuff like that over recession-proofing. Also, this is quite an equitable movement. Those who can't afford new shit are already contributing to it.

We could even make an app that shows stephen miller, steve bannon, or one of the dogeshits talk whenever people got tempted to buy shit.

Ask yourself what that means to business contracts which depend on those laws to be guaranteed,

Agree. If they feel the rules of engagement can be changed unilaterally, we can show that this can go both ways.

n the strike is over. If the company can anticipate well enough, they’d raise prices when the demand comes back and come out ahead in the long run.

You have to use/consume less, and for an extended time period, not just change when that purchase happens.

But yes, with that caveat, use less, and choose the lesser evil when you do need to buy something. The individual effect is small, but small things add up.

The mitigation is to focus on used goods so it is much less painful. Unlike gas, people don't need that new TV, or that next phone, gaming console, their Nth streaming sub and use alternative (wink) ways to consume entertainment media.

Yup, delayed consumption would be the most likely outcome, but that's not necessarily a problem if people can apply this pressure in a meme-like fashion. It's sorta like the gamestop squeeze.

Also the immediate personal pain could be mitigated by buying used stuff.

I know people just google stuff without looking into references, but let me do it for you:

Reference: Kelly Blue Book, Study: Electric Vehicles Involved in Fewest Car Fires by Sean Tucker, January 28, 2022 Points to AutoInsuranceEZ.com which appears like the worst kind of EV slop: https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/?_cl=aC559XZjJUWkUEucak9lPfNY

To find the rate of car fires by vehicle type, we collected the latest data on car fires from the NTSB and calculated the rate of fires from sales data from the BTS. Take a look at what we found below.

1. Nothing on the time frame and the specific date range of the data.
2. NTSB DOES not collect car accident data, NTHS does...

I.e. this reference is useless and surprisingly low quality for a .gov site.

Your best data is from Sweden and that also doesn't provide rate of fatalities so this whole thing isn't settled when it comes to fires with injuries (the rate for that is about 0.6%)in ICEV dominated data: https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/vehicle-fires)

I do think that EVs are safer, this is why I drive one (not a tesla...), but if an EV burns, that a huge issue. And again, drawing conclusions from 2 accidents over a year vs. 10 years of pinto data is well...not a good comparison.

That's still an overestimate because the miles driven needs to be taken into consideration, time to fire, etc and on the CT's side we should never include the suicide case in the stats...

But an honest analysis would compare the CT to EVs as their fire rates are inherently higher, which doesn't mean at all that EVs are less safe in general than ICE vehicles.

If you can’t believe a PHD holder on their subject of expertise, and you won’t run your own analysis...

...When you have such low numbers of cases you need to individually review each case because the risk of bias is exorbitant.

Car fires are not common in 2025.

They seem to be more common in EVs, so if you want to make a statement on the CT youcompare it to other EV trucks and if you spot a difference, THEN you can make the case about the CT being unsafe.

Every single car built in 2025 should be safer than the Ford fucking Pinto!

Perhaps excluding 99.7% of Pinto deaths makes this conclusion slightly less valid...

ces. And I struggled with that one. I worried if I didn’t include it, I’d be open to the opposite criticism - folks would say “wait these stats suck, I literally saw a guy die on the news in a flaming Cybertruck, and y’all didn’t count it, so these numbers can’t be right.” So, sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. It was controversial, I knew it would be, so I flagged it in the article so folks could make their own decision about it. Ultimately, it didn’t meaningfully change the final findings. I’ve run the numbers with and without it, and the story is fundamentally the same either way.”

If it's a difficult choice to not include the guy who shot himself in the car he exploded then I want to know what is considered an easy one:D

The whole premise is that the pinto was known for being a fire hazard. Deaths due to lack of airbags and piss-poor seatbelt usage is the 70s has nothing to do with fire-related deaths. And given they’re also using the number of cyber trucks produced, that is also an apples to apples comparison.

So you choose a single metric responsible for about 1.6% fatalities for the Pinto from 25% of the timeframe it was produced and at very best 66% of the ever existed pintos on the road and then you compare that metric to what appears to be 125% of ALL deaths in the CT and then you call it apples to apples?

Talking about mental gymnastics...

You’re back! I’ve seen this article posted a couple different places (not by me), and you keep finding it! And posting an image of one of the many data tables from the same study.

1. I'm posting this response because shitty analyses like this keep feeding people's confirmation biases while making us dumbder given the poor bases in reality.
2. I'm referring to this table because that's the main data table this very "analysis" refers to.

You should also include a screen grab of the page of the report that specifies the 27 deaths due to the notoriously fatal design flaw in the Pinto that is included in my article.

That's not how a real analysis is done. On the Pinto's end you're OK with them selecting 1.6% of the deaths that occurred due to evidently passive accidents (rear-ending), deflate the rates of these by using clearly false production numbers (60% less than counted) and timeframes within these events happened (4x shorter than counted).

If you read my article, I’m specifically comparing the fire death rate due to the notoriously fatal design flaw. It’s specified in plain English in the methodology section. If you don’t like the clearly stated methodology, re-run the study with a methodology you do like, IDGAF.

So on the CT's end you find it acceptable to include ALL causes and further inflate the death rate by 20% with the inclusion of the suicide guy?! Seriously?:)

The reason for that methodology: 100% of the Cybertruck fires involved ONLY the Cybertruck. Which is weird, single car fire accidents are not common. The Ford Pintos, I could only verify that SOME of the fires were caused ONLY by the Ford Pinto. I wanted an apples-to-apples comparison as best as I could make it. If you don’t like any aspect of this, like the vehicle totals or whatever, you can always re-run the numbers like I told you to in the original article.

**No, if you want a real "apples-to-apples" analysis and not meme-shit like this, you compare the fire rates to a contemporary vehicle of a comparable class. Either a gasoline/diesel F150 or even better, a Ford Lightning. Now that would be something we could learn from. **

Like, I’m a comedian who tells pickup truck jokes most the time.

This definitely makes a good joke, but people confusing jokes and reality is the issue.

I’ve linked in the original article to a very credible scientist who re-ran my numbers more rigorously and they came to the same conclusions, with the added benefit of confirming the sample sizes were statistically significant.

The first step in a real analysis is formulating a relevant question. One can make ANYTHING "statistically significant" For example, I can guarantee you that I can find a singular metric for most cars from the 70s in which would make them look safer than a modern EV. What would we learn from that other than making memes?

yup, trump's a symptom not a straight up cause. his demise is expected to be the least consequential of this "elite" trio, as he is already getting sidelined without consequence. Old, virile trump would have fired musk a month ago.