Right wing is the one that actively and openly hurts people, so yeah I do see a difference tbh

So sad it didn’t take off, I would love to have an alternative to Android or iOS right now

Also, same

I highly doubt 20% of light bulbs purchases are going to appliances. Refrigerators have been using LEDs for over a decade now, and even when they weren’t, they lasted significantly longer due to being operated at colder temperatures and for significantly less time. Oven lights also last a long time because they are off almost all of the time.

I think your original questioning of what’s the point was valid, but now with more data presented to you you’re being dismissive and not bothering to research why they did it. Reducing energy consumption still matters even if we were to get to 100% renewable overnight (not possible) because constructing the renewables still costs carbon at the moment. We need to be doing everything we can, and this decision isn’t taking resources away from other decisions, that’s a fallacy.

…Why not both? It makes sense for it to be illegal to sell a device that consumes more than 6x the power of the equivalent and dies significantly more frequently. I searched for statistics and it seems like 20-30% of bulbs sold are incandescent. That means well over half the energy consumption of light bulbs still comes from them. It’s low hanging fruit that can have an almost immediate impact, even if it’s not enough on its own.

Well sure but you could just replace it with an LED bulb…

Edit: missed the word oven. My question is just for fridges

Planned obsolescence is a thing here. The LEDs don’t fail, it’s the power circuitry. Unfortunately the fixture theory doesn’t pan out, as fixtures meant for incandescent bulbs need to be able to dissipate much more heat (about 6 times as much). I’ve been using LED bulbs for 7 years in all sorts of different fixtures and have never had even one burn out on me. Why? I don’t really know. Maybe I turn the lights on less often than other people?

I mean, the treatment he had the first time worked, seems to me like it would make sense to do it again, especially with the advances in the treatment since the first time

Steve Jobs died because he tried homeopathic treatment the second time, so you can take him off that list lol.

I hate that the article opens with

Just a decade ago, the concept of self-driving cars might have seemed like something out of a science fiction movie

Ten years ago there was already a ton of competition in self driving car research. They were first legalized on the roads 10 years ago. Tesla autopilot (including it even though it was a scam) was sold 9 years ago. Google spun off its self driving car division as waymo in 2016.

This feels like one of those “bruh Zelda ocarina of time came out 29 years ago, we old” memes

I was trying to politely say go look it up yourself and form your own opinion

Part of the reason I consider those arguments weak, is we could be dedicating research money to solving those problems, but we don’t. In his video, he also is very quickly glossing over the counter points. For example, the patient who received a heart stent because they detected early narrowing of an artery would not be given a stent today, and instead it would be monitored, which is a good thing. For the breast cancer bit, two paragraphs show up on the screen showing a study that followed women with DCIS. 5/28 of those women died of breast cancer. So by the numbers in that study, testing positive means you would have an 18% chance of dying from breast cancer if you did nothing. Idk about you, but if my ods were practically 1 in 5 I’d be monitoring the situation. Again in the anecdote the patient chose to operate too early, and a good doctor would be advising against that. Lead time bias is the only argument I think isn’t weak, but there also isn’t really enough data on it for us to know for sure. That and the fact that deaths to cancer remains steady instead of going down as diagnosis goes up. I still think it would be better to screen people and monitor them if they test positive rather than wait for symptoms, because so often the symptoms come far too late. I also think more research could be done to reduce false positives and understand what makes some cancer not deadly. It’s severely under funded research because it doesn’t make money and it isn’t glamorous, but it could absolutely save lives

It’s not that bold, it’s something people have been saying for a long time. It’s been hotly debated for years, and there’s plenty of articles and YouTube videos discussing it

People downvote but it’s true. Most cancer can already be cured if we detect it early, and we have many early detection methods that go un-used because it costs insurance companies more. The scientific/medical arguments against routine screening are weak and pathetic.

How did you block an instance?

Make an Elon musk community

Is this place called technology news, or technology? Asking for a friend

We can and do talk about it, but it’s not valid to use it as a talking point against electrification. There is tons of research being done to reduce dependency on lithium and the likes. Chances are, the people who own the mines are banding together to lobby against it too. To the LexiconDexicon, be constructive, don’t just talk shit that helps no one.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, buzz off

Yup, he’s an inept piece of garbage that made it to the top by chance.