• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle






  • 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.


  • 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.








  • 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.