1181
Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1181 points (86.1% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
1604 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No. No, he never was. Any leftist will tell you that the only solution to the car problem is public transport... not silly attempts to make individual cars more "eco-friendly." That's not leftism - that's what we call "green capitalism." And leftists have understood that loooong before Phony Stark skipped South Africa to avoid being drafted into the SADF to uphold the white supremacist state he benefited so richly from.
100% agree with you now. I wasn't at that level of analysis at the time yet.
Me neither. They really did a number on us.
Do you think you could be a little more careful in your angry smearing of conscientious objectors please?
My brother dodged the draft. He’s a theologian who spent years in exile due to his refusal to serve the corrupt apartheid government.
Give a fuck about Edolf Twitler or don’t but leave the rest of us out of this. Cunt is your problem now anyway.
Just, mind the facts while you rant if you don’t mind. Please.
Perhaps you need to stop smearing conscientious objectors by pretending Phony Stark was one - you might just as well pretend Donald Trump was a conscientious objector if you apply that label to Musk.
It's out in the open now - Musk is as much a white supremacist as any National Party goon. And, like a lot of rich white kids whose families got rich off the opportunities and impoverished black labor the Apartheid-regime provided them with, Musk felt himself too entitled to actually do the dirty work himself. It was common knowledge here in South Africa at the time - the rich white kids from rich families got to opt out of the war, despite the fact thet they benefited the most from the Apartheid-regime.
It is true that some of those rich white kids actually were against the Apartheid-regime... but Musk wasn't one of them. His blatant support for white supremacism and his enabling of right-wing ideology proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Exactly. If the reason you are "conscientiously objecting" is because you're a rich Nazi shitheel who is too much of a pussy to fight for anything yourself, no one cares because you obviously don't have a real conscience to be conscientous with.
He is clearly fine with sending others to fight his battles for him. Can he be any more the Gen X version of Trump?
You're pushing a very niche view as if it's universal, I get why you're doing it but you're wrong to. There is no single solution to transport requirements and while the vast majority of leftists of course agree public transport is vital it's not a magic solution for everything and outside the car hate bubble is very rare for anyone, even a leftwing person, to be staunchly anticar.
You might not like it but it's reality.
Oh, it used to be far, far more universal than it is now. They spent a lot of propaganda money to make it less universal.
Considering how the rivets seem to be popping off the western propaganda model recently, I'm willing to bet that it might one day be a lot more universal once more.
You might not like that, but that's reality.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
universla
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't mean to be rude but you're confused and delusional, there isn't a transport authority in the world that thinks we can totally do without cars - I'm all for idealism but it should be at least grounded in some form of reality.
Riiiight... I'm confused and delusional because you want to live in a world where Big Auto's profit margins are prioritized over the needs of the public.
Phony Stark might have a little blue check mark to sell you - he likes the way you think.
If I had my way then manufacturing would be publicly owned and based on open source principles, that wouldn't change the fact that transport networks are still going to require cars.
Do we over use cars? Yes. Can we totally do without cars, vans and specialist vehicles? No.
They're incredibly versatile and hugely efficient in certain usecase situations, the infrastructure is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to maintain than any other alternative.
Ecologically they can make a lot of sense too, especially fleet managed electric self-drive which is without a doubt where we're heading.
Investing in long distance passenger train networks isn't a great strategy at the moment, by the time it's half built it's very likely efuels already on the market now will have significant adoption in aviation thus making flying a far less polluting means of travel than trains -- but it'll be too late to change because you've already released all that carbon from the huge steel works needed to make the tracks.
What we should be doing is creating car friendly transport hubs allowing people to do first and return mile by car and linking all those transport hubs with efficient, affordable, safe, and reliable short and medium train lines. Cities should have tube and tram networks that are accomodating to all and which include the protections required for safety of the passengers, especially from other passengers.
'women getting harassed doesn't matter' isn't an acceptable answer, 'disabled people can just stay home' isn't an acceptable answer, 'People who need to transport stuff can't' isn't an acceptable answer... Until rail based public transport can actually fill all the needs of the people it's not a viable solution in it's own.
Mixed mode integrated transport network is what every single person who has any interest in transportation agrees is the best solution, everyone except the kneejerk flatearth anticar nuts of course.
You start off very well... but after that sentence you just take a running nosedive into bog-standard green capitalist apologia.
FTFY.
No. They absolutely fucking do not in any way, shape or form.
Never going to happen, genius. Just the massive infrastructure air travel requires makes this attempt of yours a joke. When it comes to efficiency, nothing beats trains - except ships. That's not going to change any time soon - or possibly ever.
You're saying a lot of things in strong terms but not proving any evidence for why you're right and groups like TfL who are regarded as one of the most advanced public transport networks in the world are wrong when they say mixed mode integrated transport networks are the only viable option.
Just adding swearwords and huffing like youre some expert talking down to a fool is a fun tactic in a discussion but when you don't have anything to back it up then it just makes you look like a bloviating jackass.
Do you really think that running train lines to every rural house is ecologically more sound than cars? And we run them all empty on the of chance that someone wants to use them? Do we run a cargo line to ever farm and factory?
There are use cases where ecologically speaking personal vehicles are the only even vaguely sensible solution.
If you had a heart attack would you like the paramedics to spend an hour waiting for trains then another hour on trains taking you to the hospital? Maybe special ambulance trains that wizz past the others and delay everyone hours because the schedules got messed up while they were in sidings? No? Then we're building roads anyway and it would be silly not to use them.
And yes air travel using efuels is ecologically far less impactful then train travel even on legacy lines (i.e. lines which have repaid their initial construction cost (ecological), these don't really exist much because maintenance continues to add significant ecological cost.)
Cost over the life of infrastructure per person mile is actually very low for aviation, airports are cheaper than trainlines by a wide margin and planes are about the same cost as trains per served mile, a bit cheaper but thats largely due to economies of scale so I'll be charitable and handwave it.
We need more trains, we get more trains by being realistic about where they're useful and proposing and supporting sensible developments. Personally I am angry at the endless green flag waving idiots that opposed HS2 because it was going though forests, that is an amazingly good use of trains and have been already reducing both car and lorry use on some of the UK's busiest roads while also serving as a great starting point to a integrated cargo network requiring only last mile trucking - but it got shit all over by so many people including idiots that shout on Facebook about how terrible cars are and then say the HS2 cargo transport plan was bad because it was built around mixed mode rather than some magic transporter or what most the lunatics actually seen to want a return to barbarism and the destruction of our modern society.
Oh, look... hysterical hyperbole. Yawn.
Prove it.
Oh, look... more hysterical hyperbole. Yawn (again).
So what is your magic answer for emergency services in a zero car world? Or do you want to admit that yes roads and automobiles are kinda vital?
Oh... look - the person that can't argue without resorting to hysterical hyperbole is mysteriously resorting to yet more hysterical hyperbole.
Who woulda thunk it?
What are you trying to do - win the prestigious "Right-wing Shill Of The Year" award?
Can you show me one person that has ever advocated for this (alleged) "zero-car" world?
So you're saying we do need cars and a road network?
So I guess that's a yes on the“Right-wing Shill Of The Year” award thing, huh?
I'd wager I've been an active member of more leftwing movements than you, certainly since you seem to be in the very naive mindset of 'anyone who disagrees with me must be a right wing monster'
But I'll accept that as a 'yes we still need roads and you were right about the integrated transport network thing and first/last mile and the many areas where trains don't make sense economically or ecologically'
I think it's Mao in Contradictions that talks about how in the search for a better world you can't afford to hold resentment against tools simply because they were once in your enemies hands, or maybe it was Deng, but the point is if cars can help us in the structure of a better society we shouldn't reject them just because they can also be useful in a bad society.
Certainly we shouldn't resist improving them simply out of some emotive grudge.
Don't bet anything you might need now, you hear?
I don't give a fuck what Mao or Deng has to say about anything - do tell... what reactionary faux-left organisations have you actually been in?
No wonder you are so ready to shill for capitalists.
Do you have any argument based on anything besides yelling and stomping your feet? So far all you've done is backtrack on your original statements and cry about how I'm not left wing enough, or the wrong kind of left wing or whatever your next childish attempt at defection from the topic is.
It's ok you can just say that you don't really understand the complexity of mass transit systems and that your original stance was nothing but kneejerk emotion - you don't need to keep making yourself look more foolish.
I'm sure you're very sweet really when you're not all flustered like this, take a moment to breathe and try to remember that being wrong doesn't have to be scary it can be exciting, it's learning and putting you on a better track for thinking about things in the future.
Oh… look - the person that can’t argue without resorting to hysterical hyperbole is now hysterically (and hyperbolically) pretending I backtracked on something to save face.
Ho hum.
Oh... look - here's my knee. And it's still exactly where it was when we started.
Fancy that.
Yeah but have you noticed how I keep going back to the subject at hand and reiterating my initial statements but you're actively ignoring all of that and instead choosing to just try and insult me in vague terms?
You obviously realise that I have enough interest in and understanding of transport infrastructure that your emotive and catchy slogan based arguments aren't going to hold water as I can refute them with actual evidence based studies and the work of experts in the field. Possibly you're also aware that my grasp of the importance of such systems in a left wing or socialist state eclipses your rudimentary idealism.
If this was a debate for points and prizes then you'd be making the only sensible move, but we're not here for prizes - we're here to try and broaden understanding of what's needed in a better world and to determine how we can work towards that together for the benefit of all.
So stop being hissy and get back to the important matters, you seem like a good kid with a lot of passion and energy - if that's directed right then you could be a real boon to the movement for a better world. Getting lost in ego and fear of admitting you're wrong isn't going to help anyone though, least of all yourself.
Let's make friends and forget about all the angry stuff you said, and yes I have been mean and rude too and I do apologise very genuinely for that, I just care about this stuff and it gets me caught up when I feel people are making it harder to shill for urban modernisation through trams and track based cargo networks. I don't want to have to be explaining the limitations of mass transit but also I don't want to be part of groups that will make me look foolish and to have to start every argument in favour of trains with 'yes obviously a lot of people who argue for trains are crazy and wrong but...'
No, it's a Musk thing - he claims him skipping out on doing his bit for the Apartheid-regime (the true reason for his family's riches) was based on his (alleged) "stance" against the Apartheid-regime - but his overt white supremacism and his enabling of far-right ideologies kind of disproves all of that, doesn't it?