I love this comment. On one hand I don’t hate the idea that this exists and it’s an obscure aesthetic thing. If someone wants to make super fancy cocktails then fine, whatever. On the other hand,

“Shut up and drink your whisk(e)y neat like God and the Irish meant it to be consumed. The water is already in it.”

Love it

With the barriers to entry that Lemmy has it’s not that unlikely. It’s like an incel going onto 8chan and saying, we can’t all be the most edgy people we know.

According to this website there are only around 40-70k daily active users (monthly vs semiannual). If you look at total users we’re sitting on about 1.3 million with 11 million posts per day and 23 million comments per day.

So 0.015% of the world population on an obscure site which is not mainstream accessible.

EDIT: Just because you were one of the smartest people in your class doesn’t mean you are “smart.” I would argue that it says more about the other kids in your class than it does you, most people are fucking stupid.

The extra electricity needed for EVs is zero or maybe even negative

That’s unlikely to be the case, the US already does use batteries in power production and the amount more we would need to switch all US power to solar would be astonishingly high.

Power plants can’t react to the amount of power needed at any time and they get inefficient trying

They can’t react in the minute by minute basis, but they do react to usage. Most coal fired plants only operate at about 50% capacity most of the time and bring on reactors to match the predicted power usage curve. When building a power curve profile the power company typically takes into account constant power as a baseline (solar and hydro being always on during the hours it is active and the power output of a given number of reactors is relatively set). Power is then supplemented with smaller generation sites which might use natural gas or even petroleum products. The smaller sites are far less efficient and make less power, but the name of the game when making power is making sure you always have enough for demand.

Let’s say it’s peak day, 25 solar farms are making 675 MW right now, each coal plant reactor can make 500 MW and the demand right now is 1250 MW. You start up your natural gas turbine plant to make up the difference during peak day, but as the sun goes down you start up reactor 2 and 3. As reactor 2 and 3 get going the power usage goes up to 1600 as people come home and the solar farms stop generating power so you continue using your turbine plant but also start drawing from your batteries. Once reactor 2 and 3 are up and running you might stop using your turbine and keep drawing from your batteries, but when people go to sleep the power usage drops to 700 MW. Now power usage has dropped but you keep the reactors going for a while or begin to shut them down (they will still make some power as they shutdown) to recharge the batteries.

All these numbers are hypothetical, but it’s a description of how the process works.

I’m not gonna watch the full hour and a half, but I skimmed through to make sure his message was at least mostly consistent. This guy is talking about renewable energy for cars and vaguely extrapolates that to all energy requirements.

Doing a quick Google search came up with 2.2-5.2 trillion watt-hours as the amount of energy needed if all US vehicles were electric. Currently the US generates ~11 trillion watt-hours per day so this would increase that amount ~20-50%. In this video the guy mentioned a 27 megawatt solar farm (~130-150 MWh/day), but a large coal plant generates 15-24k MWh/day (500-1000 MW instantaneous).

The US currently has ~12.5k utility scale electric power plants, to replace those with solar and switch all cars to electric you would need ~2-2.5 million solar farms the size represented in the video.

The industry standard is that each megawatt a solar farm is rated takes 5-10 acres. For nuclear that value is ~0.8 acres/megawatt and for coal it’s ~0.64 acres/megawatt. While large power plants generate ~500-1000 MW they vary in size dramatically so the actual average is closer to 50 MW per plant. By that math, the current total land for existing plants should be ~400,000 acres but the equivalent if we switched to 100% solar power would be 270-675 million acres of land.

I’m not saying that renewables are bad or that we shouldn’t pursue them, I’m also not arguing that we should all hold on to gas burning cars, but there is not compelling enough evidence that switching to 100% renewable energy would be cheaper.

EDIT: The estimates here don’t include things like the coal mines included in them but it also doesn’t take into account the production of panels, batteries, or the component materials in either of them such as lithium mines. I think solar probably wins out when comparing just that side, but their land usage alone likely tips things.

I’ll stop playing before that happens

Yeah, it may have changed. Here is the website for commissary eligibility, it looks like civilian employees get limited access (mainly grocery store like items). Here is a link to the Exchange, they get limited privileges or conditional unlimited privileges depending on their situation. Here is the website posting the Army Civilian benefits. Looking online they do have access to on base housing, but active duty get higher priority and may have to wait for an opening.

Here is the general DOD website for the civilian employee benefits, it looks like they get general federal employee insurance (generally considered to be good), and the general federal pension (20 years of service by 50 years old). This site also has more information about the exchange and family care.

Because it’s Nebraska police and they’re always feared for their life.

To add to this, something I like to point out to people, but (for the US) only ~60% of military personnel are ever deployed. Of those 60% only 10-20% will ever see combat. To top that off ~25% of the military are actually civilian service members, people who work for the military but are not soldiers.

So in summary, for each soldier that sees combat there are:

• ~6 deployed soldiers who will never see combat.
• ~11 non-deployed soldiers who never will be.
• ~6 civilian military staff who will probably never need to move for work.

Of these 24 people, all have access to the commissary, retirement and pension, top tier insurance, paid child care, up to 26 days of paid time off with 13 sick days and 11 fed holidays. The only things the military civilians don’t get are the VA, loan programs, and special protections.

So unless you’re a complete block head with no skills or talent your odds of joining the military and basically getting socialism with no risks is pretty high. Remember this the next time someone gets mouthy about respecting “the troops” or “serving their country,” odds are they didn’t do shit.

I used to work with a whole group of guys who their whole military career (20 years) was running a wastewater treatment plant on an Air Force base in the US, that’s it.

From what I understand the Grand Jury reviews whether there is enough evidence to go forward with an indictment, not whether someone is guilty or not. I did a bit of digging and this event occurred Feb 6, 2024, and the Columbus Nebraska police did not start regularly wearing body cams until March 30, 2025. So that’s what, 3 officers word vs 2 parents of the deceased? At the end of the day there probably just wasn’t enough evidence. The Grand Jury trial was for prosecution by the State AG’s office against the Columbus Police officers. Government prosecutors typically won’t take a case to trial unless they are certain they will win, that’s why they have something like a 95% trial success rate, not because they are good prosecutors but because they drop any they aren’t certain of.

On DuckDuckGo that is unsurprising

I think that’s all well and good unless you are wrong. From my perspective I think you are wrong, but maybe you aren’t. As things sit the people that are on your side think they are in trouble and want outside help, but you are saying “you’ll be fine.” The US has historically been the interventionist in the first world, but now they are in need of intervention. This has been the soul of the Republican argument for a long time, the US intervenes and the rest of the world does nothing. Now the Republican’s want to pull aid from allies and intervene (cough invade) only when it benefits them.

At the very least Europe needs to pick up the slack the US is dropping, even if they don’t go the extra mile to help fix the US. At the end of the day the US is steering towards needing foreign interventions, a civil war, or devolving into a totalitarian regime. Meanwhile the rest of the world is watching and wondering why we don’t just fix ourselves. I’ll tell you the sensible answer, I’m renewing my passport and making sure I have enough money for a last minute flight out of the country.

I feel like what you are touching at is that liberals in the US, and Americans in general, are waiting for a touch stone. So far nothing has gone so far as to start the fire. On the other hand there has been no centralizing ember, someone to carry the torch.

Yes, the US has a long history of minority organizing, but minorities are one of the worst groups for turning out for elections (in fact minorities are more likely to turn out if they are voting for Republicans than they are for anyone else, a key element of being a conservative in the US is turning out to vote but liberals can’t seem to harness that energy).

The US doesn’t have the baggage as you mentioned, but the existence of the two party system carries a ton of baggage on it’s own and has effectively squashed most third party resistance.

Most American’s do believe in Democracy, but sadly one half is too stupid to know what it is and the other half only believes in it when it supports their ideas. The second group is one which would happily ban all abortions and then complain when a woman can’t get an abortion even though the pregnancy is killing her. My very own cousin is white trash poor with his children living on government assistance, but thinks we need to end welfare because the minorities are using it. These people are too stupid for governance.

To your final point, the US left needs a leader, a cult of personality to combat Trump, but there frankly isn’t anyone right now. So far no one high enough up in the social circle has been willing to stick their head out far enough to rally around.

I hate to say it, but the US is at the point where we need a life line. Just like the US coming in and occupying Germany to eliminate the Nazis, we now need an outside force to help fix our shit. Short of that the US needs another civil war, but I’m not so certain that it will go the way we want it.

The problem is that the steps between zero and a hundred are incremental rights which take decades to establish. If you are a non-American then you might have those steps already established, but currently the US does not. So once the status quo passes beyond the acceptable parameters the only possible solution is violence.

Another user I spoke with asked about collective rebellion, union strikes, and general resistance, but these don’t work if the infrastructure isn’t already in place. You can’t start a strike if you don’t have a union and your co-workers don’t agree, you can’t take up arms without at least a state level rebellion, most protests are effectively meaningless, and unless you are willing to give up everything (job, family, and well being) then you’ll never amount a significant resistance.

For the most part people want to live their lives with the least amount of fucking up they can. So long as the republican’s don’t fuck up their shit too much they will keep their heads down and vote in the elections.

Democrats and states both follow the same rules. They will try to counter the Republicans, but if that means a government shutdown with old people and the poor going without assistance then they are willing to cave. So far we aren’t at the point where any US group is willing to make real sacrifice to make a change, such as a fighting, going without, or causing their family to suffer.

100% agree, also China’s outrage is in name only. They provided 1.6 Billion in relief in the form of buying oil lol.

Some of the most Christian acting people I have known were Jews, Muslims, and Atheists.

…Win?

Jokes aside, if you don’t believe in god and end up going to heaven because you were actually a good person that would be a win in my book, but I would imagine the atheist in this event would be eternally upset that they were wrong in their actual premise. Joke is more funny if you ended up in a non-Christian afterlife.

I was wondering about that as well so I looked into the dates. Apparently Obama got the award in October 9, 2009, and some of the first controversial drone strikes under his administration were in March and April of 2009. Dude came out the gate drone striking and the Nobel Committee just ignored it.

I used to want to work for the federal government and once upon a time it was a very good job. Decent, but not the best, pay along with good health benefits, large amounts (in US terms) of leave, extra holidays, and a pension program. Now I don’t see why anyone would want to work for the federal government. A common sentiment amongst government workers are that you are there for at least one of four things:

1.) Early retirement/pension - In the older days you could potentially fully retire as early as 50.

2.) Healthcare - You got to keep it into early retirement and it was typically better than any private or business insurance or medicare.

3.) Stability - Once in you would probably never be laid off or fired.

4.) Ulterior motives - A lot of government workers do what they do because they get something else out of it. Someone working at the EPA might get a sense of fulfillment and earnestly believe they are making a difference. Likewise someone working in ICE might be getting their failed-military-abuse-of-power rocks off on the bit of power they have over others.

Well the stability is gone, the pension only matters if you have the stability to get to 30 years, and the healthcare is getting worse over time.

Let me start by saying I’m 100% against fascism, but… we do have a terminology problem. The left overall has a messaging problem, “Oh Black lives matter, so that means White lives don’t?!?” Words do matter, but it’s because they matter that we have a problem. The left seems to ebb and flow on vibes (“Just because we say Black lives matter doesn’t mean other people’s lives don’t”) while the right seems so much more literal, but the subtext is maybe even more implied. For example, they might say “They [people not like us] are taking our jobs,” but what they really mean is that they are taking the jobs we want (office jobs, trade jobs, etc), but we don’t mind them working the jobs we don’t want (basic construction, farm hands, etc), all the while their vibe is wrong and that’s not really happening.

When you call someone or something fascist they probably won’t believe you because fascism equals Nazis which equals antisemitism in most of the common people’s view. I’ll assume that anyone who has found their way to Lemmy probably understands the difference, but at the same time many of this platform don’t seem able to understand that the common person doesn’t know the difference.

There is a big difference between systemic racism vs open bigotry. A bigot is much harder to turn from racism than a person who grew up in systemic racism. It still might take decades to turn someone who is systemically racist, but a bigot will likely take longer. The same applies to a fascist; like a systemic racist they might not understand that they are racist or what racism even is. Education or experience are the two avenues people escape those avenues, but it’s especially hard if you’re doing it alone and if you feel attacked by the terminology.

Fascist = Nazi = Jew hater

“Well, I don’t hate jews, I’m not a Nazi, so I’m not a fascist” -common Fascist

I’ve had plenty of discussions with Conservatives where I took the discussion to a rich vs poor direction or a a personal rights vs governed rights direction and they suddenly become liberals without acknowledging it.

Honestly it’s the same hurdle that the left has had for decades, just because you’re a leftist doesn’t mean you love Stalin and Mao. Messaging is important, one of the most recent persons to break that mold was Bernie Sanders who made it at least semi acceptable to be a Democratic Socialist.

A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn’t want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn’t pay him what it’s worth to take it over.

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.