I’ll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.

I trust Tesla’s internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing’s internal testing.

Too bad more people didn’t have their minds changed by Paine’s “Agrarian Justice”. What a banger.

This is really clever if you’re okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe… Otherwise it’s a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.

the US foreign policy never change between the two parties

This is such a reductionist take on an incredibly broad and complex topic that I have to wonder whether you’re joking.

Isn’t it common knowledge at this point that Jill Stein is literally a spoil candidate

To all but the most naive it is.

That’s totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.

I’m primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I’m thus unwilling to take a “we don’t have to worry about human extinction because it’s statistically unlikely” stance. I’m also not attempting to assert that that’s your stance, either. I don’t know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.

I really appreciate your reply, and I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I’m coming off as an ass.

Don’t worry, it only has ≤5 lines of text because the card is cropped. The artist credit line at the bottom of every card would mean that it indeed does have >5 lines of text. You just know how to extrapolate from incomplete data!

Alright. I’m sorry to have annoyed you. I was just hoping for a discussion.

We have a difference of opinion and that’s alright. My concerns surrounding the Holocene extinction event triggering total ecosystem collapse need not be yours.

I’m a human behind a screen, just like you. It’s free to be kind to people, even when you disagree with them.

Look, I know it’s not something anyone wants to confront, but I’m not sending it out of malice, or to attack you. There’s no need to be condescending.

I simply want to be realistic about the world we live in. From my point of view it is better to be concerned about the possibility of human extinction and act as though it is a potential outcome, rather than to pretend that our species has wholly conquered the laws of nature and is indestructible.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47540-7

Don’t miss this bit:

The bounds are subject to important limitations. Most importantly, they only apply to extinction risks that have either remained constant or declined over human history. Our 200 kyr track record of survival cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities from modern sources such as nuclear weapons or anthropogenic climate change.

So then why not proof-read what you post? If you don’t care enough to proof-read it, why should we care to read it?

No judgement intended here, English might not be your primary language, but it’s “write it off”, not “right it off”.

I wiped my ass with a wadded up ball of 25 toilet paper squares for years because no one wanted to tell me about more efficient and effective ways to do it. Bathroom knowledge is like your paycheck. They say you shouldn’t talk about it with your peers, but it needs to be talked about.

These days I can clean my whole ass, even on the most explosive days, with less than 10 squares, and I’m saving so much money.

Stein stans refusing to engage with this screencap while also arguing that it’s okay because Stein disavowed Duke’s endorsement:

There’s also the issue that after the moon landing we didn’t really improve that much and much of the knowledge faded

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with it.

Refusing to acknowledge the nuance of a situation demonstrates a binary (dualistic) cognitive development level.

To muddle our analysis by insisting that fascism is already here, or that the Democratic party is fascist, or that liberals are fascists or the midwives of fascism, or that Democratic party voters are voting for fascism, is to disarm ourselves against the fascist threat. It is defeatism to shrug our shoulders saying that both parties are fascist, and a disservice to the many antifascist militants in our own country who have been killed, injured, and locked away in prison while struggling against this extremely serious threat. To assume that January 6th was a hyped-up myth, or to belittle its gravity, is a dereliction of our most solemn duty as Communists and workers in the belly of the beast.

https://www.cpusa.org/article/the-united-states-is-not-a-fascist-country/

Why don’t you give us your opinion on why both Jill and Joe surround themselves with fascists?

Saying immigrants bring ‘bad genes’ echoes Trump’s history — and the and the world’s

With a mishmash of false claims about crime and ridiculous race science, Trump makes explicit the racism at the heart of his politics.

Former president Donald Trump has long espoused a worldview in which genes are the determinative factor in someone’s life. In 1988, for example, he told Oprah Winfrey that success requires luck — and that “you have to be born lucky in the sense that you have to have the right genes.”

In a 1990 interview, he said that he would not have followed in his father’s footsteps had he been born into a coal-mining family rather than a rent-mining one.

“The coal miner gets black-lung disease, his son gets it, then his son,” he said. “If I had been the son of a coal miner, I would have left the damn mines.” This, he said, was because he, unlike those poor coal miners, had the “ability to become an entrepreneur, a great athlete, a great writer. You’re either born with it or you’re not.”

Trump has previously raised this theory of genetics on the campaign trail. In 2020, for example, he praised the “good genes” of people in Minnesota. He then offered a warning to those robust-gened Minnesotans: his opponent in his bid for reelection, Joe Biden, planned to “flood your state with an influx of refugees from Somalia.” The transition did not escape the notice of observers.

In an interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday morning, Trump’s suggestion that non-White immigrants are genetically inferior was made explicit.

The comment came as Trump was disparaging his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

“How about allowing people to come through an open border,” he said, “13,000 of which were murderers, many of them murdered far more than one person and they’re now happily living in the United States?”

This is a false claim — “outrageously false,” in the wording of The Washington Post Fact Checker — based on a misrepresentation of numbers released by the government. That data indicated that there were about 13,000 immigrants who had committed murder but were not in custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many, though, are in custody elsewhere, including at the state level. Nor were they all immigrants who arrived during the Biden administration; many were here under Trump, too.

Unchallenged by Hewitt, Trump continued on the subject.

“You know, now, a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes,” he said. “And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” Reinforcing that he was talking about the “bad genes” of immigrants, Trump offered up more false claims based on the ICE data.

Hewitt, rather than contesting Trump’s genetic argument, shifted the conversation with no apparent irony to the federal criminal charges Trump himself faces. These, of course, are not a function of criminal genes, in Trump’s estimation, but instead of the political whims of Biden. (In reality, they are a function of Trump’s actions.)

Trump has a track record of dehumanizing immigrants, repeatedly referring to immigrants who commit crimes as “animals,” for example. He also has a record of disparaging immigrants in sweeping terms, aggregating them by nationality as a rationale for declaring them unwanted.

He does this with other nonimmigrant groups as well. Speaking to Hewitt, for example, Trump appeared to conflate “Jewish Americans” with “Israel” — as he has in the past.

“I think Israel has to do one thing: They have to get smart about Trump,” he said in the interview. “Because they don’t back me. I did more for Israel than anybody. I did more for the Jewish people than anybody. And it’s not a reciprocal, as they say. Not reciprocal.”

Here Hewitt did push back: His numbers, in Hewitt’s estimation, were improving among Jewish voters. But Trump replied that they “should be 100 percent.”

This inability to see nuance in cultural and national groups of which he isn’t a member is one thing. His claim that America was being flooded with “bad genes” thanks to new arrivals to the country is another thing entirely. It’s also one that might evoke unsettling historic parallels for some Jewish observers.

Beyond the racism of such claims, it’s also striking how self-serving Trump’s deployment of genetics is. Immigrants to the United States — like the Haitian immigrants now living legally in Ohio who were the target of lies by Trump and his running mate last month — are the ones who escaped the cycle of suffering that Trump referenced with his coal miner example. They are the ones who, in the face of natural disaster and political unrest, pulled up stakes and sought a new, better life. They are, according to Trump’s 1990 calculus, the winners of the same genetic lottery as him. Except that, unlike him, they haven’t been convicted of crimes.

But such inconsistencies aren’t important to Trump because the “genetics” thing isn’t based on evidence or science. It’s just a way for him (and by extension, some of his supporters) to view themselves as superior to the immigrants he’s scapegoating. This has always been the subtext to Trump’s politics. He’s just making it more explicit.

since English isn’t something you’re comfortable reading

I’m having a hard time figuring out what they said that merited this level of hostility. They weren’t even arguing with you!?