Riaayo t1_je4b648 wrote

For gas, coal, or fossil fuels you have to pay to extract, refine, and transport the fuels - then also have to build and run the infrastructure to burn it for energy.

Solar and wind you generate and "extract" in one go. The solar panels/plant is collecting and generating power at once. The wind turbine is collecting and generating power at once. There's no shipping or pipelining sunlight and wind.

The "cost" of mining/extraction is basically non-existent. You've gotta buy fuel to burn it. You don't have to buy sunlight or wind to generate power of fit.

That on top of it being cheaper and easier to roll out solar panels and wind farms than it is these other power plants, and the lower cost is clear.


Riaayo t1_jdauzu2 wrote

I am not so naive as to not understand there are certain levels of contaminants in commercial food, but that's why there are regulations for "acceptable" / safe levels of such things - and why those who go outside of those regulations should at least in theory be held liable/accountable for it, especially if someone were to get sick.

None of this changes that botulism is a thing, and that a dead animal in your foodstuffs is a serious contamination. We're not talking about a few ants or something, we're talking about a full on dead/decomposing mammal.

What corporations do also has zero baring on how you prepare and store your own food that you have harvested and processed yourself.

I don't have a problem with ignorance or rural living. People don't know what they don't know until they know it. But I definitely take some issue with people who refuse to admit they didn't know something or refuse to admit reality, entirely on the basis that admitting so would inconvenience them. Considering you've stated it's okay to admit you don't know something to someone else, I would think you'd be more open to that yourself.

You want to take these risks? Go for it. You're totally allowed if you're the only one consuming it and you aren't selling it. But when you come out in public and start advocating that there is no danger, and others could come across and read this and be misinformed by your personal desire to disregard safety? That's a problem.

You do you, but don't go advocating for willful ignorance of the severity of having dead animals in contact with your food to where other people will pick up that misinformation and potentially harm themselves in the process.


Riaayo t1_jdao6ex wrote

I, on the other hand, don't love how you feel this odd need to state something spiteful to a complete stranger online just because they dared to tell you you're incorrect about the dangers of dead animals in your foodstuffs.

I can't imagine what it's like to even jokingly tell someone you're going to go boil up a dead rat for your own children, just to spite a stranger, who happens to be trying to tell you about the fact that it would be dangerous to serve up to those very children a substance that has had a dead animal in it.

It's bizarre and sad, let alone totally uncalled for. But hey, I clapped back with something immature in response so fuck me too right?


Riaayo t1_jda7j2y wrote

Huge disagree. It absolutely is a danger to human health.

Ya'll can do whatever you want, but it's mind-blowing to me to see people just hand-wave this. Your health is worth a lot more than a bucket of sap.

This is admittedly a huge red flag to me ever wanting to try anyone's home-tapped syrup though lol, yikes.


Riaayo t1_jda6jx3 wrote

A dead, decomposing mouse? All the literal shit the bacteria growing in/on it produce as they consume it.

Not to mention you have literally no clue if a rodent has consumed poison or not.

There's a reason you can't cook rotting food. Asking what toxins are in a mouse is the same as asking what toxins are in the ham you threw in your fridge. The toxins are a byproduct of bacteria living on it. You can't cook that away. A dead rat is going to decompose the same way the ham in your fridge will.

Also, y'know, when you put the ham in your fridge it doesn't have literal feces in it like a living (and now dead) creature will.


Riaayo t1_j1rrfai wrote

The highway absolutely has the risk of accidents and pileups, but someone is also going to find you on that highway in that case. Nobody's going to find you for days out on a back road if something goes wrong.

Obviously the real LPT is not to be out driving in these conditions if you can help it.


Riaayo t1_j1rqvid wrote

Google maps is already at its core a convenience device of "I don't want to have to plan this / think about it, please do it for me." Which is totally fine most of the time and I'm not looking to call people lazy for using it - I use it myself.

But what I mean is the core instinct of why people use it translates very easily into the extended "I don't want to think about it, please do this for me" that can result in what you're seeing here. And when the app works for people in good weather, and is taking traffic into account? It's not that shocking that people might just assume the thing takes weather into account too. It seems to do everything else right? Why not?


Riaayo t1_iy2dj5f wrote

No, you can compare the total cars produced of both. By this same "metric", compare the amount of internal combustion engine vehicles Tesla sells. Oh fuck it's 0? Oh fuck, Tesla doesn't sell those? Oh fuck, the other manufacturers didn't use to sell EVs either?

But apparently only Tesla gets some slack for "taking time to ramp up production". You know who else takes time to ramp up production of a new product? Literally everyone. Except the other manufacturers already have manufacturing capabilities, factories, and workforces.

Tesla is literally only profitable because it sells its carbon credits. It doesn't sell enough vehicles to turn a profit.

Now, here's the thing: that'd all be "fine" if Tesla wasn't valued with the likes of fucking Google and Apple on the stock exchange. That is the fucking problem. Tesla produces so few vehicles that it's not only less than its competitors, but it can't meet its own demand and can't profit off those limited sales. Yet it's not only valued higher than its competitors, it's valued with the likes of Google?

Yeah, sorry. The company is over-valued and I don't care what "narrative" you're here to peddle.