This is not the right metric to use. Cost vs. benefit analysis has to include damage caused by the treatment (i.e., wrong cells taking up RNA and consequently getting killed by the immune system) vs. damage caused by the infection.

How would that work? The delivery mechanism (liquid nanoparticle) is not capable of discriminating.

You are downplaying the risks. Not only immune system will react to these bacterial proteins, it will likely react to cell producing foreign proteins as infected and also kill them off. Last but not least, the immune system might also end up reacting to similar things and this is how you end up with a novel allergy.

We were told with COVID jabs that lipid nanoparticles was the delivery vehicle for mRNA payload. What would stop this new treatment from getting taken up by your own body's cells and consequently get killed off by the immune system? Personally, I would wait for long-term trial data to come in before I consider something like that. The last thing I need is getting scar tissue in my respiratory system.

Full EV is perfect around town car for a wealthy, urban home owner. If your commute is not that long, if you have a home to charge your EV overnight, and if you can afford second vehicle for long trips (or fortunate to live where great train system exists) then EV is ideal for you.

I recommend being extra skeptical of this advertising point. First, engine oil should be changed with miles and time. Second, hybrid is hard on oil because of lack of continuous operation makes it harder to get oil to temperature and evaporate condensation.

In context of consumer electronics and batteries (because we are discussing rare earths) it is very reasonable assumption. Plenty of competition, minimal regulation, nobody coerced into buying anything - pretty much a book case of free markets.

I use what teenagers think as a cultural barometer of what general population will think about an issue in a year or so. Currently, AI is deeply uncool. I don't think I can time the markets, so I am not shorting, but I absolutely pulled back on anything exposed to tech/AI.

Why do you think I need to re-read Max, Communist Manifesto, and Das Capital?

I am very familiar with Marx and the concept of class struggle, there isn't much difference between saying that and proposing an evil cabal (a class of people, equivalent to capital) exists that somehow dictates consumer (another class of people, equivalent to proletariat) preferences.

Then do that, create non-profit, fund-raise, and run ads. PETA used to do just that, now almost nobody wears a fur coat. However, as an individual I still can own and wear a fur coat. Convince the population and shift the demand.

Yes, because cocaine is exactly as harmful as palm oil and CO2 emissions from petrochemicals. Reading your unserious opinions is demonstrative of delusions that late-stage decadent leftism can lead to.