Yeah... the EV charging station is the compromise position.
1. It is fixed at your home (or a known charging location)... so it's not tracking your movement (unlike your phone, but that's another story).
2. It is already smart tech, so adding 3G, 4G, 5G or fail-safe Satellite uplink tech for reporting purposes would be 'easy'. Alternately making 'smart meters' smarter is already on the drawing board (for good and/or ill).
3. If compliance is a concern, there are always simple ways to engineer the Car not to charge from anything other than an 'authorized' EV Charger.
4. This is already how we fund roads... the energy usage is the tax base.
Arguments that we want to tax 'exact' mileage since fuel/power efficiency skews who pays for what is usually offset by the general principle that fuel/power is correlated to weight which is a fairly good proxy for fees anyway.
The simple approach is to embed the technology in the EV chargers to tax them for road-fees.
The EV charging tax might be some percentage less than the Gas tax to provide a mild incentive... but it's pure foolery to think that EV's don't require roads and maintenance the same as Gas vehicles... and that eventually there isn't a single 'incentive' to having an EV... we just call it owning a car and paying taxes for roads.
Now... opposition to paying taxes for EV charging at the source? Who whom.
If it's not emulsified within the Aioli DOC, then it's just spicy Mayo.
I bet the black garlic is an Umami bomb... will have to experiment some.
This weekend we have a wedding ... we're at the age where our friend's children are getting married... sometimes these are children whose diapers we once changed and who are practically siblings to our own children... sometimes they are barely known children of friends. This one is the latter. Still lovely, but makes you realize that the whole affair takes the entire day, and I'm like... is their an express version for friends of the parents?
Since Saturday is usually date night (see above), we decided to mix-it-up and go wild on Thursday by going... and I'm not making this up... to a MOVIE at a theater (technically an Alamo). First movie since, well, you know. We saw the new Ryan Reynolds movie with Samuel L. Jackson and Salma Hayek and it delivered *exactly* what that movie was going to deliver. Plus a twist and about 100 extra MF bombs than you might have expected... like parody levels of MF, MFers. Really more of a cable movie (which I'll watch another 20 times while I'm puttering around on my computer)... but you know, until Dune comes out - what are you gonna do?
Yeah... I guess this is one where knowing who granted Cert (do we?) would probably tell the rest of the story.
With a 7-2 outcome, I'm guessing the 4 were in the majority to take it up to put it down. Or, maybe 2 changed their votes to compromise on the narrow 'standing' outcome to live to fight another day? And that's the rest of the story.
I've sort of lost the plot on the Mandate --> Tax --> Suspended --> Repealed?
Was it officially repealed or is it suspended indefinitely? I suppose if it were reinstated, then TX would have standing, but then the Robert's ruling would stand (or, Trump - pick you bad pun) that the tax is lawful?
Possibly. It's not a pessimism of outcome; I have no idea who or what will prevail.
But, I'm content to rest here that the Enlightenment Project of moral reasoning is no longer persuasive to either wing. And appeals to this form of moral reasoning is insufficient to the task. I think the appeals are sincere and they are consistent from 'within' the framework. We're just not working inside the same frameworks anymore.
Think about it this way: We've made appeals to the New, Academics, Fact Checkers and now the Courts. If I'm right some or all of those institutions are already reasoning backwards from Narrative, and those that aren't will do so voluntarily or will be made to.
But fair enough, I'm ruminating on theory/philosophy applied to a specific moment... quite likely I'm wrong about the moment, but I don't think I'm wrong about the trend.
Sure, *we're* coldly rational, but what about *them* ?
What if we're witnessing the collapse of a shared moral/rational framework to even discuss these things? This is sort of the MacIntyre observation about Moral Philosophy in general... now it's finally reached the apex(nadir) of public discourse.
What I'd posit for consideration is this (using MacIntyre terms for a framework):
The Cold Rational Middle-types are the Enlightenment Establishment.
The Radical Left is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
The Radical Right is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
Nietzschean frameworks literally and figuratively eat Enlightenment ideas to power up. Enlightenment rationality doesn't have within it the tools to overcome these movements... which is why every attempt at disrupting mis-/dis-information is subsumed into the narrative itself.
You and I can click on all the links we want, but we're not subverting a narrative that fundamentally lives on subversion.
Yeah, there's clearly alternative packaging going on... for a while you could even chose I think they called it 'easy access' packaging for some products. Not seeing that as much, but also not seeing as many clamshells from Amazon. Maybe the solution is to kill bricks&mortar for good...
I think this sort-of highlights the disconnect and why both sides claim dis-information... as Kazzy notes above, we have competing narratives:
*Mention was made of the news reporter and the burning car.
*This was countered with (maybe theoretical?) data on how many protestors were actually violent.
--This was countered with… mention of the news reporter and the burning car.
--But it was actually countered with $500M in damages which questions Proposition 2.
But Prop --3 is reasserted.
And this is why... 'stop disinformation' is the loaded question it is... did only 7% of protesters cause $500M in damages (some estimates going to $1B)... is the $500M too high? is the 7% too low? I also saw reports that the 7% was aggregated across *all* the protests... which might be a sort of dis-information campaign about the specific event in MN-St.P which caused $500M in damages. Unless the $500M in damages isn't accurate... etc. etc.
So, who's not taking a moral position to adjudicate whether our protests are peaceful? Further, if both are accurate... what's the non-disinformation conclusion?
And even further, one side stakes out an indefensible position that if $1 in damage is caused, the entire protest is invalidated; but then the other side stakes out the indefensible position that $infinity damage is morally justified under the circumstances being protested.
There's a problem, but it really isn't (simply) disinformation.
So you're sayin' they eat bugs? If we had real capitalism, there'd be a distribution network translating my surplus cicadas into silk. Alas, Crony Cricket Capitalism is keeping us down.
Not calling anything progress until we find a replacement for clamshell packaging.
It would be nice if it could replace 'plastic wrap' but the thing that makes plastic wrap useful is its clingy-stretchy-ness... absent that it would be like covering it with wax paper. So I suppose we'll have to see all of it's properties (native and manipulated) to figure out where it would fit in? Heck, if all it did was replace toilet paper bundling, would be huge. Is it translucent? Does it take ink?
My point about grift (perhaps a word past it's sell-by date) is that I personally was surprised by the speed at which mini-careers and mini-industries were created around fixing/solving that weren't as interested in fixing/solving as they were in perpetuating/extending.
Yeah, prepare for all the current rifts/debates to be cast and re-cast as 'the reason' we're at this point or 'the thing' we need to get past this point.
The one useful takeaway that hit me over time was that none of the factions were blameless, and there was no point in going to the wall for a malefactor who happened to be on your team. Since the issues are largely non-doctrinal, there's freedom in pursuing procedures that will land on bad actors regardless of faction.
But, as Pinky said, it's not simply obvious which are the best procedures and which aren't a type of 'grift' appropriating the language of procedures - either for 'change' or 'status-quo' or the worst: status quo masquerading as change.
Mr. Leveler, would you mind stepping over here while we review your transaction. In the meantime, besides your ID can we see two proofs of address, proof of citizenship, and your original social security card. Do you rent or own?
On “The Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Would be a Tax from Hell”
Totally ok... they paid the gasoline road tax to inefficiently convert it to EV.
Now, my generator is dual fuel with Propane... so maybe we need a road tax on Propane?
"
Yeah... the EV charging station is the compromise position.
1. It is fixed at your home (or a known charging location)... so it's not tracking your movement (unlike your phone, but that's another story).
2. It is already smart tech, so adding 3G, 4G, 5G or fail-safe Satellite uplink tech for reporting purposes would be 'easy'. Alternately making 'smart meters' smarter is already on the drawing board (for good and/or ill).
3. If compliance is a concern, there are always simple ways to engineer the Car not to charge from anything other than an 'authorized' EV Charger.
4. This is already how we fund roads... the energy usage is the tax base.
Arguments that we want to tax 'exact' mileage since fuel/power efficiency skews who pays for what is usually offset by the general principle that fuel/power is correlated to weight which is a fairly good proxy for fees anyway.
"
Posts crossed. This is the answer.
"
The simple approach is to embed the technology in the EV chargers to tax them for road-fees.
The EV charging tax might be some percentage less than the Gas tax to provide a mild incentive... but it's pure foolery to think that EV's don't require roads and maintenance the same as Gas vehicles... and that eventually there isn't a single 'incentive' to having an EV... we just call it owning a car and paying taxes for roads.
Now... opposition to paying taxes for EV charging at the source? Who whom.
On “Weekend Plans Post: On Black Garlic”
Riffing on the Champagne/Sparkling wine thing. I'm sure it was delicious :-)
"
If it's not emulsified within the Aioli DOC, then it's just spicy Mayo.
I bet the black garlic is an Umami bomb... will have to experiment some.
This weekend we have a wedding ... we're at the age where our friend's children are getting married... sometimes these are children whose diapers we once changed and who are practically siblings to our own children... sometimes they are barely known children of friends. This one is the latter. Still lovely, but makes you realize that the whole affair takes the entire day, and I'm like... is their an express version for friends of the parents?
Since Saturday is usually date night (see above), we decided to mix-it-up and go wild on Thursday by going... and I'm not making this up... to a MOVIE at a theater (technically an Alamo). First movie since, well, you know. We saw the new Ryan Reynolds movie with Samuel L. Jackson and Salma Hayek and it delivered *exactly* what that movie was going to deliver. Plus a twist and about 100 extra MF bombs than you might have expected... like parody levels of MF, MFers. Really more of a cable movie (which I'll watch another 20 times while I'm puttering around on my computer)... but you know, until Dune comes out - what are you gonna do?
On “SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare: Read It For Yourself”
Practically I take your point... but the scenario in question is that Congress has decided to reinstate the Mandate/Tax.
Which begs the question why, if Roberts et al. ruled the Tax was within congress' purview, was this ruled narrowly on Standing.
That is, why wouldn't the ruling be... um, you're bound by the ruling that says Congress can levy the tax.
I feel like there's a key little thing that I'm missing here.
"
Yeah... I guess this is one where knowing who granted Cert (do we?) would probably tell the rest of the story.
With a 7-2 outcome, I'm guessing the 4 were in the majority to take it up to put it down. Or, maybe 2 changed their votes to compromise on the narrow 'standing' outcome to live to fight another day? And that's the rest of the story.
"
I've sort of lost the plot on the Mandate --> Tax --> Suspended --> Repealed?
Was it officially repealed or is it suspended indefinitely? I suppose if it were reinstated, then TX would have standing, but then the Robert's ruling would stand (or, Trump - pick you bad pun) that the tax is lawful?
So basically a Sisyphus lawsuit?
On “Make The Marketplace of Ideas Great Again: Combating Disinformation Will Take All Hands”
Heh, Zarathustra was always too melodramatic for my tastes... give me BGE or Genealogy to chew on.
"
Possibly. It's not a pessimism of outcome; I have no idea who or what will prevail.
But, I'm content to rest here that the Enlightenment Project of moral reasoning is no longer persuasive to either wing. And appeals to this form of moral reasoning is insufficient to the task. I think the appeals are sincere and they are consistent from 'within' the framework. We're just not working inside the same frameworks anymore.
Think about it this way: We've made appeals to the New, Academics, Fact Checkers and now the Courts. If I'm right some or all of those institutions are already reasoning backwards from Narrative, and those that aren't will do so voluntarily or will be made to.
But fair enough, I'm ruminating on theory/philosophy applied to a specific moment... quite likely I'm wrong about the moment, but I don't think I'm wrong about the trend.
"
Sure, *we're* coldly rational, but what about *them* ?
What if we're witnessing the collapse of a shared moral/rational framework to even discuss these things? This is sort of the MacIntyre observation about Moral Philosophy in general... now it's finally reached the apex(nadir) of public discourse.
What I'd posit for consideration is this (using MacIntyre terms for a framework):
The Cold Rational Middle-types are the Enlightenment Establishment.
The Radical Left is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
The Radical Right is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
Nietzschean frameworks literally and figuratively eat Enlightenment ideas to power up. Enlightenment rationality doesn't have within it the tools to overcome these movements... which is why every attempt at disrupting mis-/dis-information is subsumed into the narrative itself.
You and I can click on all the links we want, but we're not subverting a narrative that fundamentally lives on subversion.
On “Tech Tuesday: Vegan Spider Silk”
I dunno, I read that Hunter Biden cut a deal with Chinese Cricket suppliers... He's on the board as their Crisis PR expert now.
"
Yeah, there's clearly alternative packaging going on... for a while you could even chose I think they called it 'easy access' packaging for some products. Not seeing that as much, but also not seeing as many clamshells from Amazon. Maybe the solution is to kill bricks&mortar for good...
On “Make The Marketplace of Ideas Great Again: Combating Disinformation Will Take All Hands”
I think this sort-of highlights the disconnect and why both sides claim dis-information... as Kazzy notes above, we have competing narratives:
*Mention was made of the news reporter and the burning car.
*This was countered with (maybe theoretical?) data on how many protestors were actually violent.
--This was countered with… mention of the news reporter and the burning car.
--But it was actually countered with $500M in damages which questions Proposition 2.
But Prop --3 is reasserted.
And this is why... 'stop disinformation' is the loaded question it is... did only 7% of protesters cause $500M in damages (some estimates going to $1B)... is the $500M too high? is the 7% too low? I also saw reports that the 7% was aggregated across *all* the protests... which might be a sort of dis-information campaign about the specific event in MN-St.P which caused $500M in damages. Unless the $500M in damages isn't accurate... etc. etc.
So, who's not taking a moral position to adjudicate whether our protests are peaceful? Further, if both are accurate... what's the non-disinformation conclusion?
And even further, one side stakes out an indefensible position that if $1 in damage is caused, the entire protest is invalidated; but then the other side stakes out the indefensible position that $infinity damage is morally justified under the circumstances being protested.
There's a problem, but it really isn't (simply) disinformation.
On “Tech Tuesday: Vegan Spider Silk”
So you're sayin' they eat bugs? If we had real capitalism, there'd be a distribution network translating my surplus cicadas into silk. Alas, Crony Cricket Capitalism is keeping us down.
"
Think bigger: biggest Toga breakthrough since the Toga.
"
Not calling anything progress until we find a replacement for clamshell packaging.
It would be nice if it could replace 'plastic wrap' but the thing that makes plastic wrap useful is its clingy-stretchy-ness... absent that it would be like covering it with wax paper. So I suppose we'll have to see all of it's properties (native and manipulated) to figure out where it would fit in? Heck, if all it did was replace toilet paper bundling, would be huge. Is it translucent? Does it take ink?
On the spiders, have we tried raising wages?
On “Fight With You At The Cheesecake Factory, You Know I Hate It There”
The Cheesecake Factory isn't one restaurant among many, it's like going to all of them at once.
On “Economic Lesson V: Scarcity”
Being and Nothingness: ontological scarcity
"
The problem with scarcity is that it's everywhere.
On “The Southern Baptist Convention, Far Past The Age Of Accountability”
No? Are you?
My point about grift (perhaps a word past it's sell-by date) is that I personally was surprised by the speed at which mini-careers and mini-industries were created around fixing/solving that weren't as interested in fixing/solving as they were in perpetuating/extending.
"
I usually report my own posts, so no worries.
"
Yeah, prepare for all the current rifts/debates to be cast and re-cast as 'the reason' we're at this point or 'the thing' we need to get past this point.
The one useful takeaway that hit me over time was that none of the factions were blameless, and there was no point in going to the wall for a malefactor who happened to be on your team. Since the issues are largely non-doctrinal, there's freedom in pursuing procedures that will land on bad actors regardless of faction.
But, as Pinky said, it's not simply obvious which are the best procedures and which aren't a type of 'grift' appropriating the language of procedures - either for 'change' or 'status-quo' or the worst: status quo masquerading as change.
On “From Buzzfeed News: BuzzFeed News Has Won Its First Pulitzer Prize”
[Pushes the 'he said money launder' button]
Mr. Leveler, would you mind stepping over here while we review your transaction. In the meantime, besides your ID can we see two proofs of address, proof of citizenship, and your original social security card. Do you rent or own?