Dang, I wish there were a term for that…

Yeah, in my opinion you were clear about that in your comment, so I guess people are just being outraged assuming that “they’re not supporting solar!!!”

I really don’t know why people are downvoting you. The internet is full of journalistic coverage of new developments in the field of photovoltaic and electric batteries, and journalistic coverage of science is generally… poor. They overstate the importance of everything because they wanna make clickbait, and the result is that it feels like there’s a nonstop of development, of new battery technologies that are gonna change the world… It’s frankly exhausting, like, give me real data as you say, such as capacity installed per year, trends in battery capacities and prices and the reasons for that, and so on and so forth.

I hope solar eventually beats ICE engines for efficiency

I’m not sure your comment makes a lot of sense. The problem with solar isn’t that it’s not as efficient as internal combustion engines, it’s that you can’t generate electricity on-demand. But it’s already a cheaper form of energy than burning fossil fuels in many countries.

Please tell us how environmentally friendly bringing infrastructure like internet, roads, electricity, water or garbage disposal to low-population density areas is, and how resource-efficient single family houses are. Go off living your happiest life, mate, just don’t preach about the sustainability of it when your eco-footprint is twice that of a city dweller.

As advice: for solar panels to charge an EV, you’re gonna need a fuckton of them. An EV battery is easily 50kWh, which means a 10kW solar installation producing full energy for 5 hours (assuming perfect efficiency on conversion). So be ready to buy a lot of panels.

56% of humans live in cities, and this is increasing over time. It’s cool that you’re the exception who lives kilometers away from the nearest store (poor planning in your village though), but the reality is that by proper city-planning and good public transit investment, most people wouldn’t even need to have cars at all.

Wow, 1 megameter for a vehicle weighing 2 megagrams. That’s some serious efficiency

Because carrying a 2-ton metal box around you for every single trip you want to do is the least efficient possible way of doing so. Walk places, ride bikes, take trains, minimize car trips and promote carsharing for the occasional trips where cars are actually necessary.

You know that Switzerland, a country in the literal Alps, has one of the best train infrastructures on Earth?

As the other comment said, of course there are fringe cases. There shouldn’t even be a city in Dubai, let alone trains getting there, but fortunately, most cities on earth are in accessible places because, well, otherwise why would thousands upon thousands of people go there.

That’s a policy issue, not one of engineering or physical constraints.

Again, how is that relevant to EU surveillance

How’s that related to this post

How am I defending china? I just don’t see the need to go “oh look like X country” whenever the EU or the US do something bad. We’re plenty bad ourselves

Why the need to compare to China though? People can understand that mass surveillance is bad without resorting to “China bad”. Go ask Snowdon if China is the mother of all surveillance.

Communism is when you perpetuate the class relations of your country in an authoritarian manner. Oh wait, or was it backwards…

on purpose

lol

At least they’re not blowing their budget exploding rockets…

Feel free to stay an ignorant

Tell me you don’t understand colonialism and imperialism without telling me you don’t understand colonialism and imperialism.

You haven’t read a single thing about unequal exchange, or colonialism, or imperialism. The western countries (imperial core) RELY on cheap raw materials and cheap labour from third countries (colonial periphery) to be able to attain the levels of wealth and development that they enjoy. The USSR simply didn’t participate in this, and you saying otherwise proves you know jackshit about this topics or about history.

Planned obsolescence is a direct consequence of capitalism, and it gets worse the more capitalism develops. Capitalism, through competition and markets, makes some companies triumph and some companies to be outcompeted by the ones that triumph. This, coupled with ever-increasing capital investment by the companies that get the most profits, leads unequivocally and necessarily to increasing concentration of capital in the hands of a few companies in a given sector: oligopoly and monopoly. And when a sector is dominated by oligopoly and monopoly, it means competition between companies, the whole premise of capitalism, disappears. And it is at that point when malpractice such as planned obsolescence becomes a thing, because consumers literally don’t have a choice.

You’re absolutely right that it would be great to go back to times before planned obsolescence, but the only possible way to do so is politically, by eliminating the very system that leads to planned obsolescence.