That extra weight will also mean that more force is required to accelerate and change directions.
The nimbleness of a vehicle can be expressed as the ratio:
(Tire Contact Area * Tire Stickiness) / Vehicle Mass
Increasing the vehicle’s mass while making the tires harder will lead to longer breaking distances and will cause a vehicle to understeer at lower speeds.
So this big breakthrough in tire technology is . . . making them harder and reducing their grip?
There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever
That’s a bit of a stretch, unfortunately. The energy density of batteries is nowhere close to that of gasoline - joule for joule, gasoline weighs about 100 times less than batteries. Also, a fuel tank big enough to give its vehicle a 400 mile range will get lighter over the course of the trip, as the liquid fuel gets converted into polluting gas and exhausted into the atmosphere - batteries don’t get appreciably lighter as you discharge them.
Agree that 400 miles range with charging stations as ubiquitous as today’s gas stations would help EV adoption. I do worry about the rollout of charging stations being slowed down by competition with expensive and fragile hydrogen tech (keep the hydrogen on boats and trains pls).
The value of stocks has no direct impact on the volume of currency that exists, and printing literal paper money is only a tiny fraction of the new currency generated by the banking system. The person you replied to is correct. Most new money is created by banks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
As banks hold in reserve less than the amount of their deposit liabilities, and because the deposit liabilities are considered money in their own right (see commercial bank money), fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank.
For example, if banking regulators set the ‘reserve ratio’ at 1:10, and you deposit $1,000 at your bank, then your bank would be able to give out loans worth $10,000. The effect on the volume of currency that exists is the same as if the US Mint printed an additional $9,000.
One of the problems with that system is that all that money is owed back to the bank + interest. However, there’s not actually enough currency in existence to pay back all the loans + interest, so the banks inevitably get to confiscate people’s property when they default on loans. Remember that the banks invented that money from thin air via fractional reserve lending - now they’ve turned that thin air into physical, tangible wealth at no cost to them.
Another problem with that system is that big loans - i.e. new currency entering the system - take time for their full inflationary effects to be felt. The “people” who get the big loans can spend the new currency at its full value, but by doing so they put enough new currency into circulation to devalue it via inflation.
One of the consequences of the fractional reserve lending system is that increasing the ‘reserve ratio’ will decrease the rate of inflation. Less new loans are issued, so less new currency enters the system. The banking lobby does not want this to become common knowledge, for obvious reasons. Federal taxes can be eliminated entirely, and the regulatory effect those taxes would have had on inflation can be substituted by taking it out of the banker’s profits by reducing the amount of new currency the banks are adding to the economy via fractional reserve lending.
why the hell would Mozilla be obliged to acknowledge this request?
That’s what I’ve been scratching my head about too. What leverage does Russia have to force them to do this? What consequences could they impose for non-compliance?
Does Mozilla own property in Russia? Sell it or write it off, then ignore the censorship request.
Do they have employees who live or have family in Russia? Either fire them or help them move, then ignore the censorship request.
None of the above? Perhaps it is we who need to fire Mozilla then.
Ironic. We could afford more flags and guns if we had a single payer healthcare system and stopped overpaying for terrible insurance that doesn’t actually cover you when you need it.
Also, its probably safe to assume the producers will lie about how much they’re allowing to leak into the air.
There’s an app installed on your phone and a separate bluetooth device you keep in your car.
By default, it assumes you’re the driver of your car, but you can use the app to claim someone else was driving your car during a particular trip.
If you’re in someone else’s car, the app assumes you’re not driving because the bluetooth device in your car isn’t nearby.
I wish the Democrats would lay off the gun control.
Regarding taxes, both parties fail in different ways. Democratic tax policy fails at the Federal level - low/zero taxes at the Federal level makes sense because the Federal government hasn’t needed to collect taxes since establishing the Federal Reserve banking system and moving off the gold standard. Republican tax policy fails at the State level - low taxes at the State level makes less sense, because the states actually need the money to pay for programs that market forces do not provide for.
Neither party is doing enough to make our military industry more efficient, less organizationally top heavy, and less corrupt. Spending resources on war is bad, but losing a war to tyrants like China or Russia would be worse. I want USA to have more weapons for less money.
Both parties fail when it comes to welfare programs. Republicans would implement sadistic and self-destructive abolition of all safety nets. Democrats craft welfare programs that pull the rug out from under people as soon as they start down the road toward financial stability, trapping people in poverty by removing the safety net too soon. For example, Medicaid is the only good healthcare available in this backwards nation, but you need to stay poor to get it - earn too much money and you’ll end up poorer than when you started.
that would threaten Monsanto’s patents
Its the other cancer peddling shitheel this time. Syngenta owns the patent, making it completely justified for Greenpeace to prevent them from gaining control of the food supply, even if they have to use BS arguments about food safety to do so.
You don’t need to take my word for it. Its spelled out in the agreement that you’ve provided a link to, in Annex V.1.a.
One month after the signing of this Agreement - 50% of the revenues collected during this month from import taxes on goods, the final destination of which is the West Bank, and from excise on petroleum purchased by the Palestinian side for the West Bank.
The companies importing the goods into Israel pay the tax - that’s how excise taxes work. Israel agreed to give an amount of that tax revenue to the governments of Gaza and the West Bank, and that amount was calculated based on how much of those goods would later be exported from Israel to Gaza and the West Bank. Without the agreement, the governments of Gaza and the West Bank would be underfunded unless they levied their own import and excise taxes, which would have the effect of increasing prices for Palestinians.
Israel agreed to the deal that kept prices low for Palestinians and provided funding for the governments of Gaza and the West Bank at Israel’s expense. A cynic might believe they did so, at least in part, to cause dependency and to gain leverage rather than exclusively out of a spirit of humanitarianism, nevertheless they did agree to the deal and it did materially help the Palestinians and the governments of Gaza and the West Bank.
the sources I’m finding frame the issue
Yep. Reasoning out why its getting framed that way is an exercise I’ll leave up to the readers, but those same sources have confirmed the facts even if they are getting framed differently - the goods are taxed when they get imported into Israel, and the tax is paid by people in Israel. If those good are then exported from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank, then the governments of those places would be within their rights to tax it again. However, the 1994 deal kept that tax burden off the Palestinians while maintaining their access to Israeli logistics and infrastructure as opposed to importing goods from Egypt or Jordan, or shipping them into Gaza directly from the Mediterranean. The governments of Gaza and the West Bank became dependent on the free money, and that gave Israel leverage which it is now choosing to use.
Those customs and import taxes referenced in the article are on goods that get imported into Israel, and they get paid by people in Israel. Until now, a portion of that revenue was gifted to the governments in Gaza and the West Bank.
As far as I can tell, Israel does not actually collect money from people living in Gaza or the West Bank. The local governments of those places collect taxes themselves.
Israel taxes imports into Israel, and made a deal with PLO in 1994 to gift them some of that revenue. That deal expired in 1999, but until now Israel kept giving them free money anyway.
There are no left wing political groups in the US. Closest thing we’ve got is a centrist named Bernie who has no political party supporting him, and a ‘squad’ of Democrats pretending to be progressive while they support culturally conservative politics, virulent ethno-nationalism, and violently ignorant theocracy in other countries.
This article is easily falsifiable bullshit. Just ask google a question and you’ll get the same kind of search results as you always have.
Yeah, the whole thing is a monument to evil men exploiting the locals.
Yeah, there’s no way all those seams are gonna hold in the AC/heat, and I would bet there’s sub-optimal insulation in all the floors and ceilings exposed to outside air.
USA did it in 1991, day one of Desert Storm