That’s not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it’s very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.

It’s also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn’t prove that at all.

That image shows revenue not profit

We don’t need to even do the math ourselves. It’s already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I’m surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

What? You’re the one claiming that various metals aren’t infinitely recyclable.

It’s true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn’t really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I’m just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn’t need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it’s useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you’re being downvoted.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can’t get over this. We’re talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you’re talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that’s what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that’s it’s my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.

Publish date “2019” ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn’t anymore.

The methodology of this study isn’t very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

I had read that post already. Even if there are things that she’s doing that isn’t great, it doesn’t really justify a group of people circlejerking hate about them.

From the posts I’ve seen so far, it feels like the community is stating that they only exist to criticize what they see as a misleading influencer, but to me it all comes off as bullying/harrassment.

If they want to encourage change of some sort they could try and do that, but that’s not what the posts are encouraging, it feels like generic woman hate targeted at a single woman.

You keep suggesting opinions are fact… Anonymous posts aren’t facts regardless of how much you want to believe their contents.

Yes education does give people abase for learning how to fact check, but anyone (including you) can learn.

The post in this case isn’t even creded let alone creditable.

Things like the NYT and Washington Post are only creditable in the sense they link to their sources when they can, and when they can’t they can stand behind their reputation because they do share sources when they can.

But a single source isn’t enough to suggest that something is true. You as a reader need to be reading multiple sources and angles onbthebsake topic to get a healthy view on it, but those sources can’t be mostly opinion pieces (which is all you post).

An opinion piece in the NYT or Washington Post is just as useless as the majority of what you’re posting.

I certainly don’t think I can tell the difference in every case.

But the most basic validation (is this a creditable source, does it reference creditable sources) is really a good starting point.

This post doesn’t pass either of those.

There are more advanced techniques that can be used to fact check after that. But as a general rule (unless you really enjoy fact checking), if you’re not reading an official source and what you’re reading isn’t referencing an official source, it’s likely not worth giving any weight to.

Where there’s smoke, there’s a good chance there’s a fire!

The trouble is, it’s often just fog. And at somepoint you need to start recognizing the difference 😉

What on earth even is this. A whole lot of words, not a single source.

The site it is posted to is blogging site that anyone can post to.

Why would anyone try to pass this post off as official?

I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.

But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory… In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it “what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying” and you would want a response.

I’m not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that’s roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.