Over the course of 10 minutes. That means she said it about every 3 seconds...

And Colorado proposition 131

Its satire...

Seriously. $100,000 watches? Who the fuck is the target audience for this?

Trump fanatics with a lot of money. Which if even one person buys one (And Im sure someone has) The entire charade becomes worth it.

the graph is clearly just fitted to the data

That's the problem. It's heavily skewed when compared to the greater overall engagement statistics.

While I can respect the idea, pragmatically speaking, it would be too little too late. My 10 percent figure refers to global emissions from personal vehicles globally. In the US, these account for less than 2.5% of global emissions

Like another commenter mentioned, the majority of people (in the US) can't even afford EVs yet, and many can't afford environmentally conscious food replacements. If the government provided credits toward EV purchases/subsidized production/expanded public transportation, then it would maybe be possible. But given the current economic climate, it won't happen, and the rate at which it would change even if the government did wouldn't be significant enough to have a substantial impact. Not to mention that most of these policies are an attempt to disguise a lack of reform in the industrial/power sectors. The article above does a great job explaining why this sort of rhetoric is purposefully misleading.

Great job bashing the dems while contributing nothing of substance to the conversation. Do you have any points concerning Trump's or Harris' manufacturing policies? Also, per your last point, please tell me how that commenters grievances are illegitimate. Is it because they're trans?

He has just as much expertise as trump does, which is basically nothing.

Ah, yes, the old "consumers are the problem" rhetoric when, in actuality, they only account for 10% of emissions.

When did this happen?

That sir is a swan

E: could also be a goose

As someone who sells both the ecotanks are good, but you dont quite get the yield they promise upfront.

Because the ink has to travel all the way from the reservoir at the front of the printer to the print head, there is much more distance that the ink has to travel, giving it more opportunity to dry out. To combat this, ecotanks need to purge much more frequently than traditional inkjets that mount the cartridges next to the print head. This requires shooting a lot of the ink through the lines at high speed/pressure in turn wasting ink.

Also, once this cleaning cycle has been run enough times, you need to replace the ink pad that absorbs all the ink used to clean out the printer. (Only costs 10 bucks)

All of this said, I still recommend them to folks who need to print photos at home, as their color accuracy is impressive for a CMYK printer, and while the yield isn't as high as they claim, it is still much cheaper per page than most other inkjets. But more often than not, I try to convince people to just get a monochrome Brother and use a printing service/shop that has a multi-thousand dollar photo printer when they need photos.