The NYTimes is once again trashing the most promising mobility innovation of the 21st century
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16133154
Link to original Tweet: https://x.com/DavidZipper/status/1795048724021862898
You're viewing a single thread.
With ICE, you control the population by controlling the oil. Like rest of the world has to eat up price raise without much retaliation, what else you're going to do, you have to work and you depend on oil. But since China is the major producer of batteries and EVs, the nations that dictate the policies are losing that control.
So US does what it does best, propagandize the masses. Mass produced solar panels are bad, EVs are unreliable, e-bikes are a menace.
The world powers will turn the world to ruins if it serves their interests.
To be fair electric cars are still cars. Fuck them.
They really aren't that much better for the planet compared to ICE and when compared to transit or active transport they really are the least effecient "green" option.
Its not just about reducing carbon, we should be trying to reduce overall energy usage and focus on effecient systems.
Everyone driving their electric SUV to park in a sea of pavement is not effecient land or energy use.
There are select instances where they are a greener option than transit. If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there. But I'm really just splitting hairs here.
You mean using same road cars would use for buses, while optionally removing extra lanes, is less green and cheap than building and maintaining 18-lane monstrosities in the middle of nowhere?
18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs. We're talking two lane highways here, nobody builds an 18 lane freeway to a town with 50 people in the middle of nowhere. At best they will build a freeway THROUGH the middle of nowhere but the nowhere wasn't the purpose of the freeway, the connection to another major city was.
18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs.
All those 18 lanes are built ONLY because of cars.
And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas. Do you think the dirt owns cars?
What? Cars per length? What is this unit of? Some wierd linear density? I'm saying that that 18-lane abominations are built only for no other reason than driving cars. You say that car infrastructure is cheap, especially in rural areas, but you seem to ignore(intentionally or not) most expensive and destructive part of it. Which happens to go through rural areas. Or you can name abomination that is purely within city limits?
And public transit just doesn't need this abomination. Public transit works fine even with one lane per direction. Or track if we are talking about trains.
That's not even what I said. Why talk to people if you have no intent of actually listening? Talk about an unpleasant person to talk to.
And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas.
You said sentence that has no clear meaning. Per km of what? Per average distance between houses? Per average distance those cars travel? Or you want to say rural areas require more car infrastructure per car? If so, then this is close to what I was trying to say.
I reread entire convo. This started from
If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there.
And if you are not the only person living in that area, then public transport WILL be greener. One car for two people is more efficient than two cars for two people, one car for four people is more efficient and one minivan for eight people is more efficient than two cars for four people. And minivan is just few steps awa from bus.
And again, less total amount of cars means less car infrastructure needs to be built and maintained, which means less money spent.
God how do you get out of bed every day.
A lot of people are able to recognize the shit side of the world and be strong enough to not fall apart because of it.
What a silly thing to say.
Every man woman and child thinks they understand how the world works, yet we are all of us burdened by misconceptions.
If you don't think major media outlets run propaganda to protect the interests of the countries they work in, and the people they work for, I have bad news for you.
Of course they do, but that doesn't mean that every bat shit crazy conspiracy theory has any credibility.
In this case, ebikes and scooters are controversial. Controversy generates engagement. Engagement sells ads. End of.
@finesandybottom @JigglePhysics there is a tiny bit of truth to the above conspiracy theory. It is the forces that have fed the "e-bikes are controversial" narrative. But it doesn't need governments involved, just corporate pressure to fight change.
(Arguements about how integrated big companies and governments are clouds the distinction)
And choosing selling ads vs being a decent news company and having good, balanced, reporting they nefariously choose to take profit by manufacturing controversy. They, as in the the news in general, also have a history of coming to the defense of the oil industry, and shitting on anything in competition to it, because it is a vital venue for US imperialism, or economic influence, as they might say. It has proven so intentional that they call everything they say on this subject into question. You are free to feel that these economic interests don't play a significant factor in the broader operations of why they release the articles they do, but that doesn't mean it isn't that way.
America held the printing press invention dear to the heart. It was the best way to manufacture and distribute propaganda.
News is a profit driven industry and it's written by the sponsors. This is as true for NYT as it is for Alex Jones. The sooner people realize this the sooner we can dig ourselves out of this whole mess.
Well yeah, NYT is profit driven, there's no nefarious intent.
Yes, this is why all news should be treated as "Trust but verify". And if that verification consistently turns up as bunk, that's a bad news.
Problem is nearly everybody is bad news. It's always either lying through omission, single-sided story telling, assumed guilt, or just straight up misinformation.
If a news story comes along that could interfere with the profit of the owners of the NYT, what do you think their intent would be?
Being driven by profit is not mutually exclusive to being malicious. Taking greed over things like truth, better quality of life, life, etc. has long been considered a nefarious thing to do.