vividspecter

their pedestrian warning system is also louder than fossil fuel cars.

Hasn't been my experience, not that I disagree with your overall argument. Might differ by country and regulations etc.

I wouldn't say I disagree per se, but I do have some issues with the argument.

EV tax concessions and student debt reductions may benefit the well off more, but they also encourage greater uptake in education and help address climate change. Everyone is fucked if we don't address climate change quickly enough, and so speed is paramount.

On education, I would consider it a failure of society if only people from well-off families are attending university. We need a highly educated populace to counter the rampant misinformation and disinformation that permeates the world today, and to participate in a society and economy that is becoming increasingly complex. I'd prefer a move back to free university to be honest, but by the authors argument, this would be even more unfair.

And on universal vs means testing, a separate argument against it is that these systems become very punitive. Our welfare system is decent on balance, but people who access it can end up being treated like a criminal and have to jump through excessive hoops because of the enforcement mechanisms to deal with purported abuse.

That all being said, I do think governments should try to address inequality as much as possible, so if policies can thread the needle of means testing that is restrained and not punitive while keeping costs reasonable, I'm all for it.

People online are actually "real" people as well (assuming they are not bots) so yeah, at least some subset care. Do I care personally? Not in the slightest.

Better get going on those taxes Neddy!

the averge person spends most of their time during daytime away from home, so its far less practical to have solar at home.

Only because of hostility to work-from-home policies; plenty of people spent their days at home during the pandemic, and there's also carers and the elderly that are home most of the time.

But this is definitely a "why not both" scenario as both will have benefits and aid in greater decentralisation of the grid, reducing the risk of down time (whether intentional or otherwise).

Typical of Channel 9 to frame this as a bad thing. Yes, they should get more trains and drivers to meet the demand but running at full capacity, especially given the alternative, is not a bad thing.

I've done the hardware mod on an older chromebook and it's about the least risky mod you could possibly do. And it looks like your model just requires disconnecting the internal battery cable temporarily which is similarly easy to the method I needed (removing a screw).

Probably a little bit of risk from possibly fragile connectors, but that should be okay if you take care.

I’ve never used Mint before; does it not come with a graphical app store?

It does, but I think even slightly experienced Linux users will just turn to the CLI for consistency and because it's easier to explain in steps to other people. But he should have mentioned the GUI for new users, agreed.

I suspect much of it is a fear of change. People are looking for a remotely plausible reason to dismiss it, even if it doesn't apply to them, because it means they won't have to modify their behaviour. You can see this with plant based diets, public and active transport, and cooking and heating technologies such as induction cooktops and heatpumps.

The plus side is that the moment people actually make the change, they rarely go back. See also congestion pricing across the world, where the view of it is negative right up until it's implemented and it almost immediately becomes popular.

It's just the nature of the issue. Transmission lines are primarily going through rural areas, so consequently that is where the opposition is centred.

And there's a strong streak of anti-renewable and anti-transmission sentiment in the regions, much of it inflamed by disinformation locally and online.

NIMBYs are a slightly different problem in that it's primarily about protecting property values rather than mostly ideological opposition in the regions. Which attitude is worse is up for debate, but yeah, I'd prefer both groups had less power to oppose needed infrastructure.

"Without rail, Australia will fail"?

Anyway I suspect long haul trucks will win out for the medium term at least. Not because it's the best solution, but because it can be rolled out more quickly. I do hope we pursue rail for the long term good though, and not just for freight but for people moving, particularly as jet fuel takes up a greater proportion of our emissions.

It's also better to build what we can near the cities since it reduces the need for more transmission lines which are costly and prone to opposition from rural types (unless it happens to go through their farm and they make a killing on it).