it is what you want to say, not me obviously, stop lying.

There are literally millions of people doing nothing today, what you are advocating here has already happened, why aren't you happy anyway, is it because it's never enough? AFAIC everyone who can work should be taking care of himself/herself, government must not steal from one to subsidize another, especially in the system basically designed for complete corruption (and it is designed for complete corruption).

It is up to everyone individually to survive on this planet, if there are too many people unable to survive then it's a self correcting issue - they will not survive.

There is a lot of truth in what you say, and the idea that we should all be able to shout from the rooftops and be heard by a global audience is definitely more than just flawed. But I think it ignores the larger issue that has been going on, and that social media has largely undermined. Namely, how do we determine which voices to filter out, and which to elevate? Just limiting us to geographic or real relationship bubbles might be useful filtering mechanisms, but it doesn't address the problem of ever dwindling journalism, and the lack of aggregated news outlets that can be topical and informative without just being a morass of engagement bait and shouting at clouds. Walter Cronkite is long gone, and that type of platform and degree of trust and responsibility probably doesn't fit in our current world and technology. And even if such individuals did exist with a working team behind them to filter and fact check, how are we to find them out of a sea of competing voices of would be influencers, meme farmers, and cat video enthusiast?

drone batteries have to be heated otherwise drones may not even take off, Ukrainian soldiers in the field use all sorts of ways to keep the batteries warm, for example chemical hand warmers are used for this.

Class 1 and 2 e-bikes limit assist to 20 mph, not 15. You can ride them faster than that, but you have to provide the power. 20 mph is well above what most recreational cyclists can maintain on a flat course, so if these classes arenâ(TM)t fast enough to be safe, neither is a regular bike. The performance is well within what is possible for a fit cyclist for short times , so their performance envelope is suitable for sharing bike and mixed use infrastructure like rail trails.

Class 3 bikes can assist riders to 28 mph. This is elite rider territory. There is no regulatory requirement ti equip the bike to handle those speeds safely, eg hydraulic brakes with adequate size rotors. E-bikes in this class are far more likely to pose injury risks to others. I think it makes a lot of sense to treat them as mopeds, requiring a drivers license for example.

Would treating them as mopeds be so bad?

What weâ(TM)re looking at is exactly what happened when gasoline cars started to become popular and created problems with deaths, injuries, and property damage. The answer to managing those problems and providing accountability was to make the vehicles display registration plates, require licensing of drivers, and enforcing minimum safety standards on cars. Iâ(TM)m not necessarily suggesting all these things should be done to e-bikes, but I donâ(TM)t see why they shouldnâ(TM)t be on the table.

I am a lifelong cyclist , over fifty years now, and in general I welcome e-bikes getting more people into light two wheel vehicles. But I see serious danger to both e-bike riders and the people around them. There are regulatory classes which limit the performance envelope of the vehicle, but class 3, allowing assist up to 28 mph, is far too powerful for a novice cyclist. Only the most athletic cyclists, like professional tour racers, can sustain speeds like that, but they have advanced bike handling skills and theyâ(TM)re doing it on bikes that weigh 1/5 of what complete novice novice e-bike riders are on. Plus the pros are on the best bikes money can buy. If you pay $1500 for an e-bike, youâ(TM)re getting about $1200 of battery and motor bolted onto $300 of bike.

Whatâ(TM)s worse, many e-bikes which have e-bike class stickers can be configured to ignore class performance restrictions, and you can have someone with no bike handling skills riding what in effect is an electric motorcycle with terrible brakes.

E-bike classification notwithstanding, thereâ(TM)s a continuum from electrified bicycles with performance roughly what is achievable by a casi recreational rider on one end, running all the way up to electric motorcycles. If there were only such a thing as a class 1 e-bike thereâ(TM)d be little need to build a regulatory system with registration and operator licensing. But you canâ(TM)t tell by glancing at a two wheel electric vehicle exactly where on the bike to motorcycle spectrum it falls; that depends on the motor specification and software settings. So as these things become more popular, I donâ(TM)t see any alternative to having a registration and inspection system for all of them, with regulatory categories and restrictions based on the weight and hardware performance limitations of the vehicle. Otherwise youâ(TM)ll have more of the worst case weâ(TM)re already seeing: preteen kids riding what are essentially electric motorcycles that weigh as much as they do because the parents think those things are âoebikesâ and therefore appropriate toys.

I strive ICE vehicles and will keep buying them, ban or not, EV is not for me and since this is a ban that BMW is talking about, clearly this is not the choice of the people, not a market decision but an imposition by the currently elected officials, who can and will be replaced if they push such unpopular agenda.

the word BAN and the word market are incompatible.

This is news somehow that if you work for a company you make your salary or wage rather than dividends? If you want dividends, buy dividend paying stocks or start your own company.

Are you saying that people before didn't understand any of this? Peculiar.

You are really bad at this entire arguing thing, I run multiple companies, I have children, I travel extensively ( in the last 8 days I have been to Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Canada and the USA for example and this is just the start of this month, I traveled nearly every month since 2016). You don't know how old I am, you don't know a thing about me. I live this life here and now and given how many people I am actually responsible for I am certain that I care about many things. One of those things is freedom of the people who are alive today and are and should making decisions on their own behalf without any government telling them what they should or must do.

That's the press doing its usual lousy job of communicating science.

The predictions aren't absolute, they are sets of scenarios for which probabilities are calculated. The longer we drag our feet, the more the set of plausible outcomes narrows. Take Syria -- Syria was a wheat exporter in 1990, but since 2008 or so has been unable to grow enough wheat to feed itself because of climate change when it had become dependent upon imports from Russia and Ukraine. This was early enough that likely we could not have prevented it even if we heeded early warnings in the 1990s when the current scientific picture solidified. We're not going to lose the entire planet in one go, it's going to be one vulnerable population after another.

It may seem like the climate crisis has completely fizzled to you, living in a large, wealthy, and heretofore politically stable country, but it is catastrophic for the people who have got caught. That's how the climate crisis is going to unfold: the rich and comfortable will be able to adapt to the continually changing status quo by moving their financial assets and supply chains out of the way, although you may be paying more for coffee.

At this point it's a matter of degree; we can't avoid problems now like countries being destabilized by climate change and generating millions of refugees. The question is how fast and how big a problem we'll have.

- first of all, they are the past, before ICE vehicles EVs were already here. So nothing new there. Also they are the present, there are many electric vehicles in service today, buses, trains, trams, things that can be heavy and receive energy over wires, golf cars. I personally own a few electric vehicles, they are not cars but electric unicycles, scooters. Actually very large dump trucks are electric with a diesel powered generator on board.

Secondly, what is this nonsense, you have used the analogy of the horse and car in your first comment and now you are berating me for using it back at you? The hell? If anyone set up a strawwan then it would be you.

I am completely correct, there is no benefit to an EV for me from an ICE vehicle at all, there are only detriments. It is not at all the same with a horse and a car, a car is definitely better than a horse for moving me around and moving passengers and whatever things I want to move.

There is no benefit for me switching to an EV as it would be in case if I had a horse and someone offered me to switch to a car, so I don't understand this entire line of reasoning that you are engaging into.

My ICE vehicle is *better* than an EV, that's all there is to it. It doesn't make me nauseous when I drive it or when I am a passenger, EVs constantly make me want to vomit, what sort of a benefit is that????? Why would you want me to be riding something that makes me feel like shit, do you have people or do you hate me specifically?

I don't want to be tied to charging stations, power plugs either.

Now, if *IF* I could get an electric vehicle with a NUCLEAR power plant on board where I wouldn't have to recharge for 25 years straight, yes, I would take that. I would change the drive train to suit my specific needs, I would make sure this thing doesn't make me want to puke but I would take that over an ICE vehicle because it would actually be better.

Do you understand the difference? It would actually provide me with a new degree of freedom that my ICE vehicles don't have - ability to never bother fueling them in the first place. This would be very useful. I wouldn't throw away my sports cars but I would totally use a nuclear powered electric vehicle for all sorts of long trips.

Basically you have completely avoided the question I posed in the very beginning, if the EVs are better from point of view of the market, then there wouldn't be any need for any mandates. If the mandates are needed, then it means there is no significant demand for the EVs and it means that government mandates would only make companies lose money unless there are subsidies (paid for by everyone and even this becomes extremely questionable in the current economy).

If there is no market for these cars but there are mandates and no subsidies, this means the government is going against the wishes of vast majority and would have to impose laws prohibiting ICE cars, I expect such moves by the government to cause more people like Trump coming to power to remove the existing government structures because they are clearly going against the wishes of the people.

while cars are superior to horses in most ways that matter to move people abd goods, there is no such clear cut superiority of electric cars over ICE, quite the opposite. An exple - I don't like the feeling of electric car acceleration or motion, this is a physical attribute of an electric vehicle, to me it matters. I prefer my cars to be powered by gas, which I can easily pump and keep driving in minutes, I don't want to constrain myself by having to plan my daily routines and trips around charging my transport. I also like my air breathing sport car, something of a luxury, doesn't matter. I am not the only one who likes an actual automobile to ride in as opposed to an electric kettle.

My cars move me and passengers, they move anything inside them, they are comfortable, fast, they don't make me want to throw up at every take off and stop. They don't require me to carefully plan my routines and trips.

There is no benefit for me to switch to electric, while the negatives outweigh any perceived benefits. I believe you are mistaken in your comparison.

The question remains, if the market is not there, what will the manufacturers do with this stupid government mandate? If the market is there (you insist switching to an electric is like switching to a car from a horse, so the market should be there, right?) then why bother with any mandates?

It seems pretty plausible that sub-recreational doses of psychedelics could reduce anxiety, but we have to be mindful that anxiety evolved in our species for a reason. Like inflammation, it’s a natural and critically important protective process that gets out of control in modern lifestyles. It’s unpleasant but pharmaceutically banishing it could leave patients vulnerable.

One of the biggest risks psychedelic therapy will expose patients to are the therapists overseeing their treatment. Psychedelic therapy has an appalling track record of abuse by therapists, including both sexual and economic exploitation. Advocates for psychedelic therapy claim it will “open you up” and I think they’re absolutely correct. But there are other ways to say “open you up” that mean the same thing but set off alarm bells: becoming more suggestible and compliant for example. If the therapist uses psychedelics himself he may have “opened himself up” to some bad ideas about therapist-patient boundaries.

Likewise people microdosing to enhance creativity should exercise caution. Psychedelics absolutely can in some instances unlock creativity by turning down excessive self criticism, but those criitical facilities play an essential role in the parts of the creative process that come after coming up with out of the box ideas. Self reports of microdosing effectiveness should be taken cautiously, due to their potential negative impact on metacognition. Those might be like the drunk who feels more confident driving after a few drinks.

No doubt these drugs have tremendous potential to treat extreme crippling anxiety. They probably even have nootropic potential. But their beneficial effect s come by suppressing natural mental processes that serve important purposes, and the promising results we have come from self reports or clinical reports from advocate researchers. I’ve been following this because I’ve been interested in experimenting with psychedelics for years, but what I have learned has convinced me to hold off until there is evidence and protocols for safe use that would persuade a skeptic.

How are the manufacturers supposed to go against the wishes of the customers? For example I will not buy an electric car, I own cars, I will own more cars, they will not be electric. Any company has to take into account that there are people who will not buy electric. The only real way for a government to force these is to set up subsidies at everyone else's expense. Sure, they can attempt and pass laws to make ICE cars illegal, however they will be voted out based on this alone and another set of people will be placed there who will not take away people's freedoms to this extent.