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.

It’s not the cars that are the issue. it’s the politicians and lobbyists who have made it necessary to own one.

That’s exactly my point. Instead of pointing the finger at our curremt vehicles, we should be focused more on pushing for better legislation. The rest will follow suit.

It’s all come down to over consumption.

You said it yourself… It has nothing to do with our use of personal vehicles.

Our reliance on vehicles is a result of horrible city design, lobbying from vehicle manufacturers, and lack of public transportation. All of which have nothing to do with people’s tendency to over-consume.

We all need fuel to drive the car, if the oil is stopped today, what are people gonna do? They still have to change their behaviour regardless.

When you start creating impossible hypotheticals to justify your reasoning, it is a sign that your argument doesn’t actually make sense.

Let’s look at energy production, the single worst contributor to emissions worldwide. The consumers’ propensity to overuse has no bearing on where the energy comes from. Switching to renewables comes from government intervention in the form of incentivizing/requiring green energy production. Unfortunately, due to utility monopolies (at least in the US), the consumer has no way of controlling that. So no, it’s not all a cycle, if it were that simple, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO

Except that’s not the case. There are plenty of ways to offset emissions, and that is exactly how formula plans to reach carbon-neutrality by 2030. When that happens, what, then? Do you think they still need to go? Even if they are doing no measurable harm to the atmoshpere? What if they had negative carbon production due to excess offsets?

It seems you are far too obsessed with the principles rather than approaching the situation rationally/pragmatically.

Also, I don’t even watch racing lmao.

Am i weird if i tighten bolts by moving my fingers up/down intsead of side to side?

Less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions (And by my rough math, it could be lower than even 0.5%)

While many of the engineering improvements from racing aren’t nearly as dramatic as they were previously (take the flappy paddle gearbox, for example). Nowadays, the improvements are lower level, think things like material science, manufacturing processes, and efficiency. But given the scale of the consumer vehicle market, these small changes add up very quickly.

Also, I dont think you understand what neglibility means. We would still be well on track for net zero carbon emissions even without sacrificing these culturally/socially significant activities.

The prime contributor to emissions by far and away is the industrial/power sector. Slight improvements there equate to decades if not hundreds of years of racing/football. A 5 percent decrease in either would easily account for thousands of years of both.

This is my problem with the “consumers need to do their part” rhetoric. We already are. The only reason things are as bad as they have been is entirely because of greedy mega corporations and governments who refuse to change due to corruption.

Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the improved aerodymics, engine efficiency, and reliability from pushing engineering practices significantly offset the emissions created by the sport

Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.

I understand that off principle, it may seem like a waste, but thinking pragmatically for a second one can see that the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.

I think there’s a MASSIVE difference between Formula/GT/Rally guys and guys who roll coal. True racing cars count for less than 1% of global emissions. The real problem is all the flights and transport necessary to get to the venues. The vehicles themselves are a blip on the radar.

Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.

Not even remotely true. Most emissions are caused by factors completely indepedent from consumer vehicles. Nearly 60 percent comes from power generation, industrial processes, and goods transportation (Not to be confused with personal vehicle use)

Im not justifying it. In fact, I said that I didn’t agree with it. All I’m saying is that in some situations, this shouldn’t affect your decision if the car feels right for you. Like other commenters have pointed out, most major manufacturers are pulling the same BS (Which obviously doesn’t make it OK) But the free 3 year trial makes it less of a sore spot for some.

Also, there are plenty of aftermarket remote start systems that you could install if you dont want to deal with the expensive OEM solution. This is the case for the majority of additions anyway.

Again, it’s not okay, I think it’s absolute BS that you have to pay any sort of subscription on a 5-figure purchase, but thinking pragmatically, there are plenty of situations where this is irrelevant.

The subscriptions is free for the first few years so if you plan on trading it in definitely still worth it. While this does piss me off I still really like my mazda 2020

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

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.