The amount of bias, propaganda, and straight-up misinformation from western media regarding this “conflict” (more like massacre) is truly outrageous.

I don’t have any inherent support either side, and there’s too much history along with bias, propaganda, and outright misinformation to make a determination of who the “good guys” are, if anyone.

However, in such cases I will support the underdog on the principle that you don’t really want one side to have too much power over the other. That’s how we end up with things like ethnic cleansing and genocide. If Palestine (and Lebanon) had powerful militaries, you wouldn’t be seeing the mass devastation and huge loss of civilian lives. I’d prefer to see the sides more balanced so that they can keep each other in check.

Another angle to consider is that I consider the state of Israel to be actively harmful to Americans on the basis of:

• using our tax dollars to commit mass murder against civilians, including a staggering death toll for children

• infiltrating our government, interfering with our elections, and having an undue level of influence on American policy

• corollary to the preceding point: they support getting Trump back into the White House

• training American law enforcement, who then use their oppressive tactics on Americans

• similarly, technology they develop for surveillance and other means of control being used on Americans

• directly attacking our First Amendment rights

Bottom line is I’d say everyone sucks, but in different ways. But I am anti-Israel on the basis of them being way out of control (and without anyone to keep them in check) and due to the threat they pose to the American public.

There is a trade-off between efficiency and durability on incandescent light bulbs. They did sell bulbs that lasted longer, but those had lower lumen/watt.

For generic bulbs, the cost of electricity was significantly greater than the cost of the bulb. It was cheaper to replace bulbs more frequently than to waste electricity.

There should have been only one.

I’ll mention 2: Station Nightclub fire footage and a video of pigs being buried alive in response to a disease outbreak.

Lathes are no joke. There’s one that really stuck with me, I think at a Russian factory. “Dismemberment” does not accurately reflect what happened.

I don’t think I’ve seen one at the top…

I’d say bottom because I’d rather not have the cord coming towards me, rather than away, when I’m using the phone. Also it seems more ergonomic for me to put my phone in my pocket with the top pointed down rather than up.

I’m not sure what percentage of workers could do their job from home if they were allowed to. It’s probably a small minority, though a quick glance of numbers from COVID would suggest 15-20%. I’ll use 15% for sake of argument but would welcome a more “confident” number if someone has it.

Reducing the number of miles is and important way to reduce impact. Additionally, even those who cannot work from home benefit from reduces congestion and reduces vehicle idling. Although idling has less impact on EVs (though they still have to run HVAC), ICE vehicles are still the majority of vehicles being sold today in most nations and will be in circulation for decades.

Not everyone can WFH, but it needs to be part of the strategy of reducing emissions from transportation. Not pushing WFH (for those who can) is leaving a lot on the table. This is not a replacement for EVs, rather in addition to.

My point is that if they were serious about protecting the environment, they would promote WFH (for those who can…not everyone can obviously) in addition to EVs. Instead, there seems to be a big push for return to office.

The resistance to allowing WFH really shows how bullshit the push for EVs “to help the environment” is.

I’m not anti-EV and do believe they are better than ICE. But even better than an EV-driven mile is a mile that isn’t driven at all.

A lot of big state university towns that are not part of major metros probably fit this. They are going to have a lot of amenities due to the university.

Mid-sized stand-alone city. Think 50-200K people.

If I explicitly have to choose between big city or small town, then it comes down to employment options. If that is a non-factor (e.g. remote work) then small town.

For those saying culture or whatever, I’m ok with commuting to a big city once a month or whatever for that stuff. I don’t need cultural attractions for my day-to-day life.