I think you're being massively pessimistic on battery life. We already see that EVs routinely degrade much less quickly than was expected, with states of health better than 85% after a decade. I fully expect many EVs to have plenty of serviceable range at 20 or 30 years of age. And of course, an EV battery is stressed much more than a power grid reserve battery: smaller enclosure, deeper discharges, greater range of temperatures, less effective active cooling, etc. I would expect it to be possible to get 30 years or more out of a static system.

Plus, once it *does* reach end of life, the materials can be recovered and recycled and that will be dramatically cheaper than mining new materials. It's a circular economy that can last for centuries.

aCaDEmiC paTInA... do you guys even hear yourselves? NPR does no such thing. Have you even met an academic? There's nothing scholarly about NPR's presentation -- it's journalism. It's just a neutral presentation rather than polemical.

The fact that NPR and MSNBC aligned on, say, the value of vaccination, that riots to take the White House are not constitutional, that convicted felons are convicted felons even if they're also politicians, etc, is because those things are the only sane positions anyone would have ever taken prior to about 2015, and the fact that these are in dispute among batshit rightwing idiots is a sign of rightwing batshittery, nothing more and nothing less.

NPR does not advocate for, for example, wealth redistribution, while MSNBC does, because that is a left-wing position.

You are so lost it's impossible to see you ever finding your way back. It's such a disaster for your country

I agree with the wider point you're making, but we cannot ignore uncomfortable facts, and non-Muslim communities were terrorised and expelled from Bangladesh by the Pakistani military in the Bangladesh Liberation War. This violence was targeted primarily at Bengalis, and many Muslims were targeted too, but Hindus were picked out, and the International Commission of Jurists concluded that it was a genocidal attack on non-Muslim populations.

More generally, there was 500 years of religious violence from Muslim conquerors on the Indian subcontinent. We can't just pretend that didn't happen, any more than we can ignore British (and Dutch and Portuguese) colonial violence, including deliberate use of religious tensions.

So: you acknowledge Israeli have a right to self-determination and are not calling for the destruction of the state, but think it should pay reparations and acknowledge past misdeeds (I deliberately choose a word broader and less specific than crimes to capture a wide variety of acitons). Is that it? Not only do I not consider that an antisemitic position, I largely agree with it (but with some caveats about acknowledging mass expulsions of Jewish communities from many Arab countries from the 40s onwards in the same way).

Tell you what, rather than do that, why don't you elaborate on what does give someone "rights" to a piece of land? What is the basis for national self-determination?

So the rumour goes. We will see where it actually ends up.

Just to ensure I'm clear: what is it you think you disagree with, specifically? It seems to me that you think that a state of Israel cannot conceivably be legitimate, but you don't think that is antisemitic. But to follow the logic through, this means you want to see the state of Israel dismantled. What do you want to happen to its inhabitants, who are mainly Jewish? What are you going to propose that wouldn't be, of necessity, profoundly antisemitic?

This kind of historical revisionism is absolutely bonkers to me. For literally 2000 years Jews have said l'shana ha'ba'ah b'yirushalayim. There have been significant Jewish communities living in the area throughout the time. Go look where the Ari was buried, and when, for example. And as if there were some other uncontested place devoid of inhabitants where a state could have been placed instead. Wherever it were to go, there would have been prior inhabitants.

None of this is to deny Palestinian connections with the land.

And you also miss the point about driving through to the implications of what to do *now*,

I am fairly confident that by now, basically everyone who wants to, is using a VPN -- tens of millions of people in the UK. Some will be using shitty VPNs that expose them to the risk of blackmail over their browsing habits, and this will include kids, but that is apparently a form of child harm that Ofcom will ignore.

This lengthy pile of horseshit starts with a piece of obvious horseshit.

Ask a progressive to name a progressive news outlet and they will not say "why, there aren't any, there are only right wing sites like Fox and neutral sites like NPR". They will say "MSNBC". They can name plenty of left-wing media outlets more generally. The reason they don't name NPR as left-wing, is because NPR clearly and obviously strives for neutrality.

We have to stop talking about this kind of right wing behaviour as though it were mere hypocrisy. That underplays how dangerous it is. It's an example of a ruthless and shameless exercise of power: they want to say whatever they want and control what you say at the same time, and force you to pretend to agree with them or else risk losing everything. They need to be confronted for this.

The phrase "Zionists who think they're entitled to other people's land" can be interpreted in one of two ways. One way is antisemitic, the other isn't.

The first way is "Zionists, who think they're entitled to other people's land". In other words, defining Zionism as fundamentally illegitimate. That implies that you think that not only this particular state of Israel is illegitimate, but that any conceivable state of Israel would be fundamentally illegitimate, and that Jewish inhabitants of the state of Israel have no connection to that land, no right to live there, and need to, by implication, leave and go somewhere else. That is an antisemitic view, because it denies the concept of Jewish self-determination, pretends that Jews have no links to the land -- historical or otherwise, and will result in the annhilation of the state and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land.

The second way is "[those] Zionists who think they're entitled to other people's land", ie saying that a state of Israel can exist, but must acknowledge the self-determination of Palestinians, pay reparations, etc etc.

I would be interested to know which one of those you meant. Or if you meant some third thing instead.

The same article that says these universities should "make education their primary mission again" has the strapline "Harvard has many strengths but vocational education isn't one of them". Like, pick a fucking lane: are you pushing for a revival of elite education -- in which case the only vocations you care about are things like medicine, law and science -- or trade schools, in which case, to point out the bleeding obvious, that's *not elite education*.

Stupid pointless treatment of bad faith attacks by fascists on universities as though they're good faith.

1. So it sounds like you acknowledge that ICE subsidies massively outstrip EV subsidies in size, so perhaps you can stop raising EV subsidies the whole time

2. The economy also can't survive the collapse of our climate, and that is the risk we run today

Instead of spouting bullshit about people "throwing around" the word fascism, you'd be better off learning about the actual fascist things happening right now, like US citizens innocent of any crime being thrown into jail after being arrested on private property on the basis of what they look like, despite having the correct papers (which US citizens are not supposed to need to carry anyway, because carrying papers to prove you're legit was for decades recognised as being something you only needed to do in an authoritarian country).

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...