I hear you. I've addressed this in my reply to the AC above. In this case no wooshing required.

I don't normally reply to ACs but this one is worth it.

Yes. Sarcasm indicates opposition to the statements being made. However that means the person I replied to doesn't believe climate change etc are harmful. Which they are.

When you tell a teenager to do something - for instance putting on their seat belt - they often reply sarcastically with things like "yeah, because we're totally going to get in an accident and I'm going to get flung out the window. As if." They don't believe what they are saying. They believe the opposite of what they are saying.

So hey, yeah, when someone posts things that are fundamentally accurate, or at least accurate enough to be considered and adds a sarcasm flag they are fair game for correction.

So thank you for the attempted correction but I'm afraid you're off base considering the ways sarcasm is used.

In the event that you don't know/understand the answer already, I'll try to illustrate it.

Imagine life-expectancy is say... 80 years and there are exactly 3 causes of death named A, B, and C with evenly-distributed probability.

Imagine we eliminate CoD A entirely. That changes odds of dying of CoD B or C from 33% to 50%.

Imagine also that by eliminating CoD A it adds an average of 5 years of life before death, putting L-E at 85 years.

Imagine we start injecting people with a lightly toxic substance (metaphor for microplastics etc), which damages the body but doesn't kill. Say that knocks 3 years off the average lifespan, dropping L-E to 82 years.

All of the things you're reading about can be true at the same time because words mean things. Bad things are bad, and the take-home is that the bad things are what is keeping things from being better than they are. As another illustration, getting a raise is a good thing, someone making a shitty decision that drives up inflation is a bad thing, and it's possible for you to have marginally more buying power after the two but the shitty decision still sucks.

I sense great sarcasm but...

"...Ford is using the rehired gray beard engineers to train younger staff — and, to reprogram its AI tools."

These re-hires are going to train new engineers and the software that will replace them. Ford is very much going to be using more AI, as you say.

If it doesn't matter what we know or believe, why not chose to believe what you know, regardless of the elites you invoke here?

Once again... you are in control of you. You've been called out on spreading misinformation and FUD. You've admitted it. Now man up and stop it. Continuing to spout the nonsense is random. Contributing to the shittiness of the world... why?

Me? I'm in the real world, with real people, and I do my best to not make their lives worse with meaningless lies. Psycho? I think not.

That said, I think this has run its course. Feel free to pop in the last word but I'm pretty comfortable letting my position stand.

As long as you've got anecdotes, statistics and facts don't matter. Got it.

You're cable of being a rational person. Just elect to do so. This isn't subtle and subconscious. It's not like going to the grocery store and they say "limit 12" for an item that's on sale so you mentally start at 12 and count down to how many you might want versus starting at 0 and counting up to how many you want. You've seen the stats. They're readily available. You know the facts. So whenever you feel the urge to say - or type - anything that isn't in line with the facts... don't. "Oh... it's so hard... my personal observations tell me the world isn't round but I know it is... so maybe I should just not post flat-Earther stuff."

ICE carbecues are somewhere between 20 and 400 times more likely, depending on how (and when) it's measured. For instance, the 400x figure comes from measuring per-mile-driven, not just fleet sizes. Meaning... (numbers for example only) if you had 10 EVs and 100 ICEs and in a year only one of each burned, you'd conclude ICE were safer because 1% is better than 10%. But what if the EVs each drove 200,000 miles that year while the the ICE cars each drove 200 miles. Suddenly the real-world frequency would flip the interpretation of the results.

Point is... you can capitalize SCARY WORDS to MAKE PEOPLE WORRIED but pretty much everywhere you go to get the facts, it turns out BEVs are INSANELY SAFER.

Here's one for you. Are Catholic priests more - or less - likely to molest children than non-priests? Seems like every time you hear about some inappropriate touching that doesn't involve a sitting president or his friends, it's about a priest, right? Only... that's what you hear about. And that's what you notice because it confirms a pattern of what you've heard in the past instead of refuting it. It's what you remember. But wait... why does the press pick those stories? Do they hate the church? No. It's just that when a reporter is given two options... a story about a priest and a story about an accountant, they'll pick the story about the priest because it draws attention... because it tweaks their statistical bias too. Turns out it's dramatically, absurdly worse to let your kids be around their own family than a priest, if your goal is to protect them. But facts are hard. Confirmation bias is strong. Cognitive dissonance is real and it hurts.

So hey, statistically-speaking, with regards to vehicle fires, EV cars are way, way less likely to harm anyone than ICE cars. Any "but factor X" in the mix is just printing a priest story; misleading regardless of truth.

So...

1} Aside from some Teslas, there's nothing preventing an EV driver from getting out of a car that wouldn't also prevent an ICE driver.
2} Basically nobody extinguishes an ICE fire either.
3} ICE are more prone to burning than EVs are.
4} Just as EV SUVs exist, ICE sedans exist. The height of the hood isn't tied to powerplant.
5} Dashcams typically point out of the vehicle and rarely record audio (though many can).

To be fair, there's (to my knowledge) no evidence that driving a larger vehicle causes distracted driving. While it's nice to imagine that's the case, it'd have to be studied. As much as I'd like to assume drivers of those massive vehicles are less attentive drivers, we don't know that's the case. Anecdotes don't count.

I mean... maybe. Taking a look at the recent and current Ontario projects they're all remarkably rapid and under-budget. The Darlington project has been issued permits that work out to completion in just under 14 years since initial proposal. You may be thinking of other countries, but Canada is doing this stuff exceptionally well.

First up, you're mixing up two dates. The summary references ten reactors that are to be online by 2040, which is 14 years away. The 2050 date is the target to double the capacity of the grid. Only part of that is this nuclear project.

In a word, no. Our capacity is currently such that we have reasonably-priced electricity all the way down to the consumer. While we do project ever-increasing demand, we're not - in general - in an undersupply situation. In fact, we sell quite a bit of power to the US.

This whole project is about ensuring that it stays that way.

Off the top of my head, maybe RCA. Root Cause Analysis.

Say a guy gets depressed and murders his family. RCA finds underlying history of depression and pressures of work led to the event. Maybe mandatory anti-depressant treatment and monitoring, and he's never allowed to have a high-stress job.

Say someone keeps doing B&Es. RCA finds it's because they're homeless, poor, uneducated, and drug-addicted. Maybe shelter, basic food, and mandatory education can break that addiction.

Basically, people do what they do for a reason. Remove the reason and behavior can change.

I'm not sure the "justice system" takes any interest in the why of a crime.