Notices by 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 7

@deightonrobbie

Absolutely, electric systems tend to be far more energy efficient than combustion based systems. People dont realize it but charging an electric car off cas is very close to as efficient as a gas engine. When you consider our grid is at least some small part green it is already more efficient off the grid even with a dirty grid.

@fabio

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

Yup, nice chatting. I followed you back. See ya around.

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

Im not sure if the car would be considered evidence, but even if it was by slashing the tires you in no way destroyed the evidence or made it any harder for the evidence to be used in a court of law. So i cant imagine that angle working.

As for more probable cause, sure, but if your vehicle is immobile no amount of probable cause will allow a search. Once it is immobile you need a warrant regardless of how strong your probable cause maybe.

> The premise is also wrong i suppose i need to look more. But i think the focus of the vehicle search doctrine focuses on the vehicles as class of readily mobile locomotive.

Even simply locking your drugs in a safe in the trunk is enough to require a warrant actually, the premise is intentionally absurd as a joke, using a large safe would get the job done with less theatrics.

> It can be argued that no matter what you do to a car, a car is redily mobile as long as someone can fix it.

Im not sure specifically where the threshold for immobility is. But I know I've read a case (cant remember the name) where a warrant was needed because the car was on cinder blocks and didnt currently have tires on it.

Also all of this is moot because in 2020 the supreme court (PA in this case but it may be upheld in higher courts) dictated all vehicle searches now need warrants regardless of mobility.

@freeschool

> Cool. So what words do you think I should use for my definition.

If you are looking for the name of a form of government that has authoritative central banks there really isnt one. However if you want a form of government that is anti-capitalist but represents a dynamic where money directly effects your influence in the government (basically what people misuse capitalism to mean) then the closest I can think of is plutocracy.

If you just want to highlight the authoritative nature then you can say authoritism, which is a major component in how many define conservatism.

> And then how to avoid this - I can see myself like a scratched record falling back into it... because I think many others are also not as educated or good with nuances? (kinda funny but if lots of people think it's the same then they can agree incorrectly)

The best way to avoid it is learn the concepts and the vocabulary better and try to use narrow and specific language like I described above.

> The use of this word is for me to know what I mean and then also for others to know - so it's kind of a vicious cycle! -
> Although I am using the word incorrectly / inaccurately, ironically others / we know what I . they mean and share similar dislike in the things I listed along the way in reply to you.

Well no apparently others dont know what you mean, because based on this one individuals responses he seemed to completely derail the conversation focusing on communism and capitalism and completely avoiding the important aspect of authoritarianism and even making recommendations that would increase authoritarianism suggesting the use of language may give the **illusion** of people understanding you when in fact their just mapping their own definitions. It is all smoke and mirrors from what I see.

> I can see how people might naturally never come out of these proper definitions because the feelings are almost right to them or others (oppression or cheating of some kind, lack of power or some meta way to see it) and even if the words they use are not great we can agree on 'wrong' or 'right' in some way.

Its much simpler than that, its purely about tribalism and non-cooperation principles which ironically was the main topic. Look how this guy @messaroundmarx responded to even light symantic criticism, his immediate response was to try to "exile" me from any discussion. **This** anti-cooperation toxic behavior is exactly why people intentionally keep using words incorrectly, because those errors allow you to make nonsensical arguments and allow you to construct bad logic that let you "fit in" with the community. Its the same reason you do it, everyone does it. People are so toxic you will be an outcast if you actually use logic and have nuanced opinion, so you ahve to talk their language, hate who they hate, and tow the line and youll fit in. You only do that if you use the same language as them, however wrong it is because that language is centrtal tot he idology. Hating capitalism, without having a clue what that word even means, is the cool thing to do.

> So thanks for this talk.

Happy to

> A few questions to wrap is the over question and mini points here so I can continue on a better trajectory and even 'teach' others on a better way to distinguish as a better reference or step by step way. Any ideas?

Just what I said above, be mindful of the nuance, be careful about your words, and stop thinking in black and white terms all or nothing. A government isnt capitalist or not, **every** government has some amount of capitalism in it, its a matter of degrees. Its also important to know capitalism on its own means nothing all that useful other than "free market" so if you find yourself using it to mean everything a government is and does, stop and rethink.

@oerum

So some back of the napkin estimates. Assuming we just talk in terms of solar panels to make the math simple...

To power the world it would take 51 billion solar panels which have an average lifespan of 25 years (sources cited at the end).

A solar panel requires mostly aluminum and copper to construct it with 12% being copper, 87% aluminum, and 1% other stuff like silver and lead.

Solar panels require about 21 tons of aluminum and 2 tons of copper to produce 1 MW of power producing potential from solar panels. Thats 12.6 lbs of aluminum and 1.3 lbs of copper per panel.

So total to support a world running on solar panels would take 321 million tons of aluminum and 33 million tons of copper every 25 years.Or 64 million tons of aluminum and 6.4 million tons of copper every year.

Figuring out how much of that would effect shipping is the tricky part, and will take a little bit of hand waving. But in 2022 there were 69 million tons of new aluminum consumed per year. Similarly there was 25 million tons of copper consumed each year. That means the total need for aluminum would almost double and the global need for copper would increase by about 20%. Thats a total increased ore shipment across the two ores of 75% increase.

Your average freighter can carry 165K tons of freight. So to carry the new resources it would take 440 additional shipping freight cargo ships making a trip each year.

By estimates there are "hundreds of thousands of shipping vessel crossings every year" So assuming going away from fossil fuels cut shipping vessle crossings in half we are talking about saving somewhere on the order of 50K+ crossings every year but adding back only about 440 crossings each year.

https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863681/global-aluminum-consumption/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863681/global-aluminum-consumption/.

@fabio

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

Not sure how, you arent destroying evidence or preventing the cop physically from searching, nor are you even violating any directives. You've just made the situation such that if he wants to search it will be illegal.

That would be like saying not giving a police officer permission to search my house by closing my shades is obstruction of justice.

@oerum

> hydrogen in this context is irrelevant, it's a fuel not a construction material.

So, how is that an argument that it is irrelevant? If fossil fuels are replaced and green options used then hydrogen is one of those, and when it comes to transporting energy really the only viable way to do it if your dealing in electricity.

> Hydrogen is by and large also more of a delay tactic than it is a green alternative

Not entirely, while Hydrogen would never be the dominate form of energy it serves a purpose, largely for long distance transport of energy where wires arent a feasible way to move the power. While hydrogen alone wouldn't be a massive component as hydrogen would never be a main fuel source it is very much relevant all the same.

@fabio

@AncientGood Oh shit I just learned the supreme court (specifically the PA jurisdiction) they can no longer search your car off of just probable cause.. the automobile doctrine was over turned. So now your car has the same protection as your home (almost), in other words they need exigent circumstances to search NOT just probable cause. Otherwise they can get a search warrant.

@AncientGood

Half a joke. In practice I obviously dont expect anyone to do it. Though technically according to the current writing of the law it should work. So I was thinking more a scenario where you had your car booby trapped and you could flip a switch to disable it. In my head the best way would be to fry some easy to replace computer chip that would prevent the doors from unlocking, you flip a switch and when you open the door to get out the doors lock and the chip frys so when you close the door you cant get back in without noticing clearly it was disabled. Then they wills earch anyway and in court you can argue that since the car wasnt mobile they needed a search warrant and as such the search was illegal.

If your running massive drugs or something it **might** work, though the courts might convict you anyway and just modify the law to say that since it was mobile when pulled over its still valid, even though that isnt what hte law explicitly says.

Just had a thought regarding warentless searches of cars...

The automobile search doctrine allows cars to be searched without a warrant so long as there is probable cause and the car is "readily mobile". So if a cop says he is going to search your car, or you think he is about to, and you have something illegal, just slash your tires. Now it is no longer readily mobile and any warentless search would be illegal.

#ACAB #Law

@freeschool @messaroundmarx > I'm possibly falling into that typical bashing of "Capitalism" maybe because I'm not getting what I want related to the other parts of life I want and responsibility of many systems which Capitalism doesn't seem to help with - at all (at least the Modern kind).

Yea that makes sense, that and I think there is a large dose of misusing the term capitalism as well, which is extremely common, even among people who are experts there can be debate on that.

Usually people wrongly take an uneducated approach to what capitalism is, they usually take it to mean "money rules and everyone is driven by greed", when in reality it means "markets are free, meaning everyone has the same amount of power int he market, no one can game the system". Much of what people therefore call capitalism is anything but. Banks having a monopoly on the market of fiat is very much anti-capitalism, as are all monopolies. Same goes for rich people being able to influence elections, that is anti-capitalism.

The other thing people do is they assume governments are monolithically one ideology or another. They will often refer to the USA as some model capitalism despite the fact that most of its characteristics are anti-capitlist and it only has a slight capitalism influence. Same is true of socialism, people often wrongly refer to most of europe as socialist when in fact the vast majority is anti-socialist and just has a handful of socialist qualities (and the USA too has a handful of socialist qualities).

People just really suck at nuance.

> Ideally I'd like to think, involves or implement #Mutual #Cooperation (towards various things), Saving #Nature, Increasing #Commons / #Commoning, #Feelings / #Consent being part of it but not I don't see these words a lot or at all in Capitalism or books. So maybe I blame it or anyone that uses it overly (which I don't think can only be blamed on (people but the design too).

Capitalism in no way forces such cooperation, nor does it preclude such cooperation. This goes back to thinking of capitalism as "everything a government does" rather than just one of a 100 ideologies a government may adopt. Capitalism just guarantees people can engage in trade fairly, nothing more. That trade can be used to further cooperation or it can be used to further competition, that is up to the society and even the government. We can, for example, use government taxes to help everyone and engage in cooperation, there is nothing remotely in capitalism that would be contrary to that, capitalism isnt anti-tax nor is it anti public service.

> So the name is one thing but also I'm just a bit more concerned / defending what these words ignore / over-write / replace with numbers or mathematical tricks frankly.

As well you should, the issue I had was largely with your choice of wording. Your concerns, at least around the baking system and cooperation and compassion, are perfectly valid and a legitimate criticism. But we have to be clear that criticism is just as prevalent in a capitalism as it is in a communism. Even the idea of a central bank is contrary to capitalism, but in communism you dont just have a central bank, you have a central authority that forces everyone to give up their money, so you centralize not just the bank but the bank customer (just one customer, the government, everyone else is at their discretion). So with communism you take the problem of a centralized bank and replace it with centralized money where one entity controls all money.. thats like taking the problem of authoritarianism and saying "maybe if we crank the authoritarianism up to 11 then we wont have authoritarianism anymore"... its really absurd.

But yea, your concerns, once we agree is outside of the scope of capitalism is perfectly valid.

@messaroundmarx

@messaroundmarx

Usually when people try to exclude opposing but polite opinions it is a strong indicator they don't feel their argument will stand scrutiny. Usually when people suggest I remove people from a conversation because I don't like hearing criticisms the only effect that has on me is to discredit them completely.

You weakened your own case more than any argument from me could hope to, I on the other hand continue to welcome your thoughts on the matter so long as they stay respectful.

@freeschool

@freeschool

I have no issue with the first quote which says nothing about capitalism at all really. It just says people should work together rather than against each other. As a statement in isolation I don't disagree.

There are authoritarian things related to a "bank-state" I certainly disagree with. The fact that if I make large transactions it can open me to investigation and you are effectively required to use a bank for large transactions is certainly a vioaltion of rights.

So yea I agree with the issue there, only disagree with the assertion that is a property of capitalism, it isnt. In fact it is anti-capitalism as it gives a bank privilege and thus breaks free-market principles.

So I largely disagree what you associate with capitalism, more so than the issues you raise themselves which more or less seem valid.

@messaroundmarx

@freeschool

If you think capitalism is a problem and needs moving away from you already failed. Also the idea that this person things capitalism equates to authoritarianism doubly so. In fact it requires authoritarianism to institute most things that arent capitalism, capitalism is the one form that doesnt require authoritarianism, it is the default.

@messaroundmarx

@fabio

I know the current estimates for shipping of hydrogen alone is something like 15 million tons per year within the next 5 years. but yea, I would certainly expect it to be much less than oil.

@fabio Ok but how many of those would be replaced by vessles transporting the materials for solar panels, solar panels themselves, or related green tech. I have no doubt it is less, but any honest analysis or assertation on this topic would include that since it is not accurate or fair to say those ships would be eliminated when clearly they would be replaced, at least partially.

@thatguyoverthere

Ha, yea I did word that weird. What I meant to say is, the house may have been gentrified but still the rest of the town is shit, for example.

@BLTpizza

@Axomamma

Well I suppose thats one way to go from sounding like you were reasoned and well centered to showing you are clueless and dont understand the topic... have fun with that.

@Axomamma

Yes but you have to keep in mind for everything that increases above inflation everything else increases less than inflation. and overall when you average it out and consider hte portion of your expense everything is, then you will arrive at the same as the inflation rate.

So yea sure your rent is going to more-than-inflation, but everything else you buy is less than inflation so in the end the inflation rate is still the more honest value and a more complete "telling" of the story.

Also one house is not representative of the average for houses. That house may have been unusually gentrified or something. So even then one data point is useless int he conversation.

@BLTpizza

@EubieDrew

Mission accomplished, no ambitions needed they, along with the dems, already achieved that goal :)