• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle







  • we often combine grabbing food or taking a break from driving with stopping a charger. It does take a bit more planning but we have a lot more control over our time in these situations. In practice, it does not feel like much of an imposition.

    While you might decide not to, you ought to be planning those same stops irrespective of fuel or range. Even if you have a magic sci-fi car with it’s own micro cold fusion generator good for a 1000 years, you should still be planning the exact same rest stops for your driver.



  • on the remaining you wouldn’t mind a coffee break to stretch your legs once in a while. Yes that even applies to travelling salesmen and the like: Go stretch your legs and run some numbers while you charge (but the X days out of Y will look different).

    Forget “wouldn’t mind”, you (one) absolutely owe it to other road users to take those breaks. It just isn’t safe to drive continuesly for hours and hours without them. You aren’t magically the exception, you are a human being like everyone else and you are not a safe driver after hours of unbroken driving. Without exception (and that does include professional drivers who sadly are contractually required to do so.)



  • It always amazes me that people are like “but I can’t drive it for 7 straight hours without having to stop for 15 minutes!”

    Like… Get the fuck off my roads you dangerous dickheads. If you drive an electric cross country you’ll be charging it for as long as and as regularly as the minimum amount of breaks you must take in order to drive safely. Just fucking do it even if you’re in a fossil fuel car that technically could let you avoid taking those breaks. Why are people like this‽


  • People are confusing (probably due to intentional prompting by those trolls trying to have bystanders fight their battles for them) the very real problem on Reddit that if you chase karma there were benefits to be had in terms of credibility and reach of your messaging and so whatever entities might benefit from such would tend to fill the space over in Reddit with content like that. Realistically that doesn’t change the most common content much as it really comes down to the sort of thing people will upvote but it did make it a bit worse. That’s being confused with some notion that somehow anyone who wasn’t chasing karma was entirely ignored. That just isn’t true. You might not be the absolute center of attention unless you’ve either post or said something especially worthwhile but so what?


  • True. But then you got 1 karma for every comment you made anywhere on the site and often the requirement was like 50 karma.

    Restricting posts to users who have managed to make a maximum of 50 comments that didn’t overwhelmingly piss everyone off isn’t actually very restrictive.

    I really don’t buy into any of this “oh, you had to only say what people wanted you to say!” handwringing. I never once saw a user with negative karma who wasn’t just there to actively cause trouble. I’m quite certain this notion that you had to subscribe to some sort of groupthink to make it through the karma system originates from a very tiny number of people who perceive not being actively anti-social in a social space as oppressive persecution of their “totally valid” “alternative opinions”. By all means, show me accounts that were actually participating in good faith that were pushed out of the conversation by the karma system and I’ll loudly complain with you on their behalf.

    But you can’t do that. Because they’re always some flavour of racist nazi troll dickhead.

    I said whatever the hell I wanted and was frequently confrontational or contrarian and still had some embarrassingly high amount of karma simply because I participated a lot and wasn’t actively there to fuck things up by intentionally being a toxic edge-lord troll.



  • God knows why.

    Because of the things you said and how you said them. Self-evidently.

    In this comment you represent that your original statement is moderate and has wide agreeability.

    Your original statement does not. If it was intended to, then you need to attend to the fact that you have not represented your views on the matter effectively and people are responding to you as though your views were other than they are.

    If the original comment when read by people who aren’t you means what you meant it to mean, then this second comment is horseshit and you should either stand by what you said and accept that others find it repellent, or perhaps, reconsider your position.

    To be clear: Your original comment is unambiguously saying that you support the rise of a fascist state that would intentionally harm minorities. It does not matter if your intention was otherwise and you’ve just not made yourself sufficiently clear. We only know what you actually said. What you actually said is that you are in favour of this. By all means confirm that you are and own it, or, if you are not in favour, just fucking figure out what you need to change for the comment to reflect your actual values and edit it (possibly with a footnote explaining you needed to edit it because it didn’t quite express what you meant originally.)

    Don’t just throw your hands in the air and complain that people are responding to the things you said as though they are what you meant. And if they are what you meant, then fuck right off with trying to figure out how to soften it just enough to get people onside with you.


  • There will always be people who fall for these traps. Of course they are individually to blame for being duped however just blaming them doesn’t solve anything. The solution is to try to reduce how many do by providing great education (formally and culturally), minimising the ability for fascists to find platforms to spread their messaging and offering real solutions to the problems that those people have so they don’t feel they need to latch onto anyone offering to do so for them.

    As such, anyone who should be expected to understand this and who is in a position to achieve those goals. Is to blame for the inevitable consequences of not doing so (ie, neo-liberal political entities.)