A camera that reports on people who don't floss. They could sell the research data to dentists.

Bro, your dentist already knows. And is judging you every time you visit.

Herp derp all equally bad both sides so I voted for the fascist.

The really shitty politicians want you to think exactly that so you might vote for them even knowing how shitty they are.

Ostensibly yes, but the investment is smaller. You can hang them somewhere OK very cheaply, safely and easily. Plus we're talking about California here: the insolation is way more than northern Europe, so you get more out of the small investment.

Maybe it's a gateway drug

and all politicians lie as much as Trump.

You've fallen hook line and sinker for Trump's bullshit.

The strength of the US governmental system never rested on the Constitution. It rests purely on the willingness of the people to behave in proper ways.

I believe that's universally true. It doesn't matter how well written a set of rules is, it can't cover every eventuality and for the ones it does cover, it can be creatively reinterpreted with sufficient motivation to mean almost anything, no matter how obviously absurd.

The constitution is clear.

The constitution is just a piece of paper and a pretty flimsy one when the judges meant to rule on it can be bribed with an RV.

Regarding EVs, they have the same electronics ICE vehicles do, plus a battery.

Plus a battery and minus all the flammable fuel you mean.

What I'm calling for is people not to tolerate stupid sources of risk when it is easily avoided.

So: ICE car then.

This notion because x is safer than y therefore x gets a pass is an inherently stupid way to reason about acceptable risk.

X was and remains ubiquitous. Y is a safer version of X that is substantially safer than X. And yet you're attacking Y not X.

Airliners are not safer version of cars. Cars are already one of the most wildly dangerous things people do day to day regardless of logic. But in this case you're dismissing a slightly safer car than the normal kind because it's not slightly safer enough.

Sure scientists are fallible, but nonetheless it still grinds forwards to the truth about reality. And that is now the anathema to the right where ideology trumps reality. See, for example, the rights general opinion on binary "biological sex" which appears to miss out on all sorts of interesting bits of reality like XY-CAIS, XXXY mosaicism, Swyer syndrome and so many more.

You can kill Lysenko's opponents but you can't make Lysenkoism reality.

Yep, if there's one thing that needs fighting, it's those pesky lower gas prices.

Given I'm spiritually Calvin's dad, I agree.

https://www.reddit.com/media?u...

Thus, autocrats dislike research, which enables that change.

Yes: you can't control research: you can murder Lysenko's opponent but you can't make him right and in a fight between ideology and reality, reality wind eventually. Autocracy is all about control, and research is the anathema to that. It may often tell you thing that are directly contradictory to deeply held beliefs.

I mean just look at how the "biological sex" crowd respond to things like XY-CAIS, XY/XX mosaic chimerism, 46XX DSD, Swyer syndrome, and so on.
   

And now it's being systematically destroyed by one psychotic senile moron

Afraid to say it's not. Not not being destroyed. Not by one psychopathic senile moron. I mean he is, certainly, but he still has an approval rating of 34%. That's about 70 million complete morons or so. You have about 34%of the population cheering him on.

People who are deeply partisan or utterly in love with a single politician don't understand people who despise a politician specifically because of their actions and policies. It's particularly confusing for them when this is baised towards one party or the other because parties tend to stick to similar sorts of things in the short to medium term.

The blind partisans can't tell the difference between that and being blindly partisan like themselves.

So, they assume that like themselves you don't judge the actual actions of the person.

They do make the news, but often only the regional news. Did you read about the fire in Bermondsey or Avonmouth? Both were on the BBC somewhere.

The UK is never going to deploy vast amounts of solar, we donâ(TM)t have the insolation for it.

Indeed, but even so, we do get enough that relatively expensive rooftop solar is generally worth it.

But we sure as shit have the wind (and tidal) and thereâ(TM)s all the rest to do as well: EAFs, induction cookers, heat pumps, EVs, blah. We need to race or be left in the dust, like Americans with their shitty payments systems with cheques etc (and obviously with fossil fuels too).

Yep, we have a lot of wind, especially now with modern offshore building techniques.

I think with the right investment and incentives, we can also focus on batch industrial processes, things like arc furnaces and electric cement kilns which can be spun up and down fast enough to deal with weather variations where necessary. Sure depreciation is a bit of a pain, but having free energy in order to dump excess capacity is quite compelling.