daltotron

daltotron , 1 month ago

They're not. If you make your car light enough, and potentially aerodynamic enough (things which should already be done to electric cars/cars in general), it makes sense, especially for the real life practical application of people who don't have outlets they can run to their car. Aerodynamics is mostly just an efficiency increase, but decreasing weight gives a myriad of benefits, potentially including increased power to weight ratio, decreased road wear, decreased road noise at speed, increased efficiency, improved crash safety as a result of decreasing the total amount of weight you have to stop, which can actually improve the efficiency of the interior space as you can now make things like roof pillars less thick. Could also lead to increased parking space, better maneuverability, and better visibility, if you make the car itself smaller as a result of decreased weight.

Cars should be like1/3rd of their current size. Clown cars ftw.

daltotron , 3 months ago

I just scrawl my name in comic sans

daltotron , 4 months ago

You basically have it, uhh, right on the money, so to speak. I think a lot of other people try to make more specific, scientific definitions, but once you get into the meat and potatoes of, what is a “necessary” expense, what is a reasonable amount of comfortable savings, yadda yadda, you start to see the cracks form. Realistically the only solid definitions that I think I’ve ever seen have mostly just been made on the basis of people not having to work at all, to live, vs people who have to have a job. There’s probably a very highly qualified definition of “middle class” out there, but I’m not sure if it would match the idea of “middle class”, and if it would also illustrate anything valuable for anyone, really. Especially if you’re going based on the former definition of “needs to work to live”, then most middle class definitions you’d come up with would probably also fall into working class.

I dunno. It’s interesting to me how many people kind of get caught up on what I see as semantic arguments, rather than analyzing arguments around like, oh, do we like a capitalist structure of ownership, like a corp, or do we like a worker structure of ownership, like a co-op? It hits me as being a very kind of moralistic argument about “leeches” and “capitalists not contributing to society”, when really I think we should be caring about what’s a more ideal/efficient way to live, rather than caring about, you know, whether or not somebody should be defined as middle class, or petite bourgeois, or whatever. It’s basically the same argument either way, but I find the framing to be pretty important, and often overlooked.

daltotron , 8 months ago (edited 8 months ago)

I kind of half-heartedly agree with most of this, but the human era one is kind of stupid. I don’t really care about jesus’s birth or death or whatever, I just have no reason to add an extra 1 to the date for the next 10,000 years until I switch it to a 2. Mostly because I’ll be dead, but also because such a point would be so far in the future that I don’t know that any of this argument will be relevant at all.

Edit: also, you forgot the biggest one, which kind of goes along with months but not really: seasons. Lots of places don’t have four distinct seasons, they just have a wet season and a dry season, or a dry kind of summer and then a wet winter and then a dry winter, or whatever, which influences local ecology a lot. Moulding these around to roughly fit whatever any individual location’s season is, is kind of stupid. It’s better just to say what the actual season is, it’s less confusing, Everyone knows what everyone else means, it’s more specific. People have been tricked into thinking that the four seasons are a universal thing, they’re not, that’s false.

daltotron , 8 months ago

That’s always kind of been an illusion. For lots of places, especially around the equator, it gets hot enough that expecting everyone will work the same 9-5 schedule, and businesses will all be open at the same time, is kind of stupid. Places like arizona, it would make sense if instead everyone used a siesta schedule, or if the schedule was shifted way forward in the day, from the later night to early morning, in the much cooler parts. And that’s not even something that’s really dependent on time zones, that’s just dependent on variable climate. I see elimination of time zones, as more of an admittal that how we track that sort of thing is arbitrary anyways, so it’s probably better in my mind to eliminate any pretense of it being an objective system.

daltotron , 8 months ago

I meant less evening/night shifts and more like. get up at 5:00 and stay up until 3:00 pm or so, with work obviously not being in the latter portion of the day, which is when it really starts to heat up ime. Seasonal depression and other related health issues we can cure with vitamin D, as they’ve been doing in the scandi countries since like the 70’s, so I don’t really understand how you’d be getting more health issues. If anything I would think that would be reduced as people working physical labor jobs would be less prone to heat stroke and exhaustion. You know, in places where you’re working outdoors in 110 degree weather, hottest part of the day, after having already worked for like 5 hours. At the very least I think a siesta schedule would make more sense, which there’s maybe a little bit more historical precedent for.