Maybe you should think about it a while longer. Or find a friend who's better at coming up with ideas to help.
There are about a zillion other explanations. Maybe they think that "ANY messaging that encourages EVs dissuades the public from going public transport" and that's harmful. Maybe they see other EV makers as preferable to Tesla. Maybe they care deeply about global warming but just as you said, are letting their anger get in the way of that goal. Maybe they see the immediate harms of Musk's policies as a more urgent problem than climate change.
There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.
> There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.
Not really. Because it doesn't matter if you choose to support an alternative EV maker. If you actively campaign against Tesla you are hurting EV sales. There are Tesla's built today that should be purchased instead of ICE vehicle. Anything you do that stops someone else (even if you're not going to buy them yourself) is actively hurting the fight against global warming.
The only reason you would hurt the fight against global warming, is that you don't think it's as important as your reason for hating Musk. And that's a form of denialism. You're denying (if only to yourself) that climate change is going to cause death and destruction.
Banning cars entirely would help global warming more than encouraging people to use EVs.
There is nothing internally inconsistent about weighing the pros and cons and deciding what measures are and aren't worth the benefit considering the drawbacks.
I agree that this is bad, but we've already had state mandated lists of forbidden words for years, and this is a reaction to those less explicitly defined rules.
The shift is just which layer of the establishment is making and enforcing the rules. For the past half century, that's been committees at various government agencies, academic counsels and quasi-governmental groups like the AMA, etc.
Those various entities collectively mandated forbidden words that would for instance, prevent a grant from being approved, prevent a person from getting a job or tenure or a promotion or a political appointment, or prevent a paper from being published.
There is a huge range of language policing and forbidden words, phrases and ideas. From the relatively uncontroversial things like using "person with X" as opposed to "an X person" for various conditions to the clearly controversial replacement of "mother" and "woman" with "birthgiving parent" and "assigned female at birth".
I suspect this will get challenged in court and overturned and not really matter in the long term, but maybe it's an opportunity to consider all the power structures we interface with and how they control what we write, say and think.
> I agree that this is bad, but we've already had state mandated lists of forbidden words for years, and this is a reaction to those less explicitly defined rules.
One issue is that this power exists.
Another then is what it is used for.
If you have a gun and you use it to and only to prevent, oh, bank robbery say, that's fine. If you use it to rob someone, not fine.
Government has enormous power, and now that power is being used for evil and for darkness, and that's the problem.
This is a good point. It's rather ludicrous to see the people who have been acting as thought police for years with a list of banned words and mandatory terms suddenly now caring about free speech just because someone else is making the list. I'd like to think they've learned their lesson, but I think they just want to be in control of the words again.
Germany could power their entire grid using only Organic, fair-trade, hand-picked, artisanal Uranium and still be far ahead of relying on fracked gas and petroleum.
Wind and Solar are great, but still require peaker plants to maintain 24x7x365 power. Grid-scale storage is coming along, but is still cost-prohibitive to do something like power the grid overnight from solar.
I drove a Hyundai that wanted to sync contacts from my phone when I connected it to Bluetooth to play music. I declined for privacy reasons, and the car then had this loud booming audio request to sync contacts every single time I turned on the car and then I had to wait 30 seconds for the car to timeout/fail after my phone denied the request, and then I had to click on a touchscreen to skip the sync rather than retry.
I ended up just not using Bluetooth while I drove that car because it was such a nuisance. I'm not sure whether it was so bad because of incompetence (they never considered users not wanting to share contacts) or out of malice (they know they can wear people down through harassment and hassle to eventually share their data).
You could get one of those bluetooth things that plugs in to your cigarette lighter and broadcasts music on a free FM channel. We have a couple and they work pretty well.
They are only useful in areas without FM stations. I had one and threw it away, because every 5 km there would be a station on the same frequency interfering so the copilot had to change the frequency... useless. What a "luck" that Switzerland is shutting down FM. Ah, and you can't do phone calls with it either.
You've claimed this twice, but I would guess that almost no one thinks a bank teller is white collar.
Sure they work in an office environment, but their role is more similar to the cleaning crew than to the branch manager.
Nothing about the day-to-day work in terms of autonomy, education, responsibility or any other key intangibles of the job match "white collar". It's akin to being a secretary or a mailman or working in a call center.
You'd guess wrong. We have record keeping around how most people use words, and according to those records "white collar" is used in this fashion of: "relating to the work done or those who work in an office or other professional environment."
And you confirm that they work in an office environment, so that bit isn't in question. Perhaps you are confusing most with all? It is certain that not everyone sees "white collar" that way, but we're not talking about everyone.
Ironically, the actual violence was the people negligently spreading a disease that harmed the innocent people around them.
There's a funny spectrum between like, someone intentionally infecting the water supply of a city with a disease as bioterrorism which is obviously a crime which society at large agrees the police to use violence against the perpetrator to stop the act from happening, arrest the perpetrator and put them in jail. And then at the other end of the spectrum is things like spreading HIV, herpes or Covid which different people have varying opinions on whether that's acceptable, bad but non-criminal or criminally harmful to the people being infected.
Humans have very natural intuition around some types of harm or violence - directly observable things like punching or stabbing someone. But if the harm is more indirect and not directly observable, things like pollution or spreading disease, we don't have the same immediate fight-or-flight activation type of recognition and so we are often more lenient towards the perpetrators of those types of harm.
> how dumb it was for them to think they could create new legal/copyright theory in the wake of the mass-hysteria of 2020.
I haven't followed the details of this case, but as a general notion, that sounds kinda reasonable to me?
Copyright law and enforcement is terribly broken in the USA, with a handful of giant publishers wielding massive, abusive power and the average American being harmed by losing their fair use rights and independent creators being bullied and abused by the giants behind the copyright cartel.
2020 upended society in many ways and created opportunities to fix various dysfunctional parts of society. It changed things as diverse as work-from-home norms to laws around takeaway alcohol from restaurants. The possibility to also improve copyright restrictions seems reasonable.
"IA lifted its one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio, allowing its digital books to be checked out by up to 10,000 users at a time, without regard to the corresponding number of physical books in storage or in partner libraries’ possession―a practice IA acknowledges was a 'deviat[ion] from controlled digital lending.'"
No argument from me that copyright and fair use is broken (and exclusively in ways that inure to the benefit of enormous publishing houses), but the "National Emergency Library" thing was never going to fly, even if they had found a judge willing to stretch existing copyright law at the edges.
They were getting away with something because it seemed kind of reasonable. They were effectively letting one person effectively remotely view a physical book they owned.
But NEL threw all that out the window. And COVID was a pretty translucent fig leaf. It's not like there is any shortage of public domain works "for the children" out there even if copyright terms should be shorter.
Copyright law is broken in the US, but that doesn't mean that Internet Archive was going to legally get away with what they were doing and escape legal trouble, even if it arguably wasn't morally wrong.
What are you referencing as not following? I'm not in discordance that CDL was likely illegal, simply in how they were making and sharing unauthorized electronic reproductions. At that point, it doesn't even matter how many people they allowed to borrow at one time. My comment on morality was in reference to how some people may argue that the internet archive was not in the moral wrong, but the law isn't based on any one moral code, so this doesn't really matter to the legal question.
Ah sorry, I was referring to the comment about US copyright laws. I assumed you were implying that the US system was uniquely bad/broken/worse but on re reading it, that's just me badly interpreting what you said. Sorry about that!
> Saying "raise your son to be patriotic and fight for his country" is acceptable in western societies.
Maybe kinda in some circles? I suspect almost none of the tech-worker urban liberals who are the majority on HN would embrace that as a parenting notion. Even among military veterans, your phrasing would likely sound a bit off the mark. They would generally see the call as being about protecting other people and serving their country.
To address your second sentence, most people see a big difference in morality between "Protect the innocent from people who would harm them" and "Harm the innocent".
Maybe you should think about it a while longer. Or find a friend who's better at coming up with ideas to help.
There are about a zillion other explanations. Maybe they think that "ANY messaging that encourages EVs dissuades the public from going public transport" and that's harmful. Maybe they see other EV makers as preferable to Tesla. Maybe they care deeply about global warming but just as you said, are letting their anger get in the way of that goal. Maybe they see the immediate harms of Musk's policies as a more urgent problem than climate change.
There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.