Ranvier

@Ranvier@sopuli.xyz

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Ranvier, (edited )

They’re comparing a 45 mpg car to a 65 mpg car I believe, I think they’re just re reporting this press release. Still sounds a little low though, some back of the napkin math assuming gas is $3/gallon would still suggest you’d save that much after only like 30,000 miles. Savings would be more if you drove your car further than that over its life or if gas was more expensive.

nhtsa.gov/…/new-fuel-economy-standards-model-year…

The Washington post article and the nhsta press release are confusing, 50 mpg isn’t the standard, that’s just the average mpg for the mix of cars and trucks they expect to be sold in 2031.

The standards are increasing to 65 mpg for cars over time (there are yearly increases that gradually get there) and 45 mpg for light trucks/suvs. Heavy trucks and vans are also getting higher percent increases in required mpg average, though begining from a lower floor. The mix of all of the vehicle classes bring sold together will average to 50 mpg, which is where the Washington post gets that number.

Nyt article and the actual rule draft both have a lot more details.

nytimes.com/…/biden-mileage-electric-vehicles.htm…

nhtsa.gov/…/CAFE-2027-2031-HDPUV-2030-2035_Final-…

Ranvier, (edited )

Light trucks aren’t exempt, but have a different standard. The article posted lacks a lot of detail. First off 50 mpg is just the expected average given the mix of “light trucks” and cars. The actual standards are 65 mpg for cars and 45 mpg for “light trucks.”

The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger cars would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon.

nytimes.com/…/biden-mileage-electric-vehicles.htm…

So actually the light truck standard isn’t far off of the 50 mpg figure this article inexplicably comes up with even though that’s not the standard for either cars or light trucks under the new rules.

Biden Administration Tightens Mileage Standards to Buoy E.V.s | The new rule requires automakers to achieve an average of 65 miles per gallon across all models by 2031. (www.nytimes.com)

The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger vehicles would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per...

Ranvier,

Yes it’s a little ridiculous. At least the “light truck” mpg requirement is getting increased too, though not as much as the car one:

The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger cars would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon.

Ranvier,

The last time there were co2 levels like this was about three million years ago, but humans have gotten back there in less then two centuries, basically instantly in geologic terms. What could go wrong?

Ranvier, (edited )

Yeah, par for the course for Hannity and anything fox news related, misleading headline and quote, from a misleading non-answer by Trump that’s so all over the place it’s hard to follow. Even the tiny little portion they clipped out, he goes on to say he has “every right” to go after Biden if elected.

Look, when this election is over, based on what they’ve done, I would have every right to go after them, and it’s easy, because it’s Joe Biden and you see all the criminality, all of the money that’s going into the family and him, all of this money from China, from Russia, from Ukraine

And his accusations that Biden is directing his prosecution (especially ridiculous when two of the cases are state cases) are all projection anyways to distract from the fact that he’s already tried to interfere at the justice department many times when he was president.

“Trump ratchets up call for DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton” politico.com/…/trump-doj-investigate-hillary-clin…

“Trump ups pressure on Barr to probe Bidens as election nears” apnews.com/…/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump…

“Trump breaches boundaries by saying DOJ should be ‘going after’ Democrats” washingtonpost.com/…/1c157c08-c0aa-11e7-97d9-bdab…

“‘Where are all of the arrests?’: Trump demands Barr lock up his foes” politico.com/…/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427…

“Report: Trump wanted to prosecute Comey, Hillary Clinton” apnews.com/…/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90

Such a short memory Trump has. So yes, it is very true, and he’s already tried to do it many times. I know you’re probably a troll posting misinformation, this comment is for anyone else reading.

Ranvier, (edited )

His aim here is to provide cover for the politicians that actually do want to and have attempted to weaponize federal law enforcement in the past, Trump and other Republicans.

rollingstone.com/…/trump-justice-department-prose…

nbcnews.com/…/trump-turns-full-force-government-p…

www.wral.com/story/…/17094733/

washingtonmonthly.com/…/trump-is-using-the-fbi-to…

I could go on. So many instances where he ordered law enforcement officials to launch baseless investigations to harass his political opponents. Even Barr of all people at one point was threatening to resign because of how far Trump had gone! The guy explicitly brought in by Trump because he felt Jeff Sessions wasn’t directly doing his bidding enough.

All this while simultaneously trying to delegitimize our entire justice system trying to hold Trump and his cronies liable for their many criminal activities over the past eight years.

Gaslight, obstruct, and project.

Definitely heading for a Russian style “democracy” if the gop is allowed to return to power.

Ranvier, (edited )

No, because that’s not an infectious disease like a virus or bacteria. It’s an allergy your body develops to a specific carbohydrate (alpha gal) found in pretty much all mamallian meat except apes/humans. A specific chemical in the lone star tick saliva triggers it, so you just need to get bit. There’s no virus or bacteria to vaccinate against.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_syndrome

There is a canine vaccine for lyme disease (different tick species). Human vaccine used to exist but was pulled from market, might be a new one soon though. There are unfortunately other diseases besides lyme disease though that ticks can carry, including rocket mountain spotted fever and anaplasmosis. And while lone star ticks (the meat allergy ones), don’t tend to transmit lyme disease, they can transmit other diseases, unrelated to the meat allergy issues.

Ranvier,

To be, or not to ble

Damnit he was so close, start again

Ranvier, (edited )

Yes it’s using a shaky interpretation of an older law from the 50s to derive its authority, good chance a court challenge would be successful against the order, if the order is able to even change much on its own at all with the lack of funding as you pointed out.

Importantly one of the Republican arguments against attempts at any immigration reform has been, “Biden could just do what we want right now with existing laws, so we refuse to compromise with the democrats on anything or pass a new immigration law, Biden can just shut everything down right now with no action on congress’s part.” So if a court strikes this order down would undercut that argument at least. Would also make me happy, since I don’t support this order.

Improving access to legal immigration and improving thoroughput of asylum claims processing are what’s necessary.

Ranvier, (edited )

Just to be clear, this was a primary election within the pro state hood party (PNP), who tend a little toward the republican side, ironically given the national Republican’s party obstruction of consideration of Puerto Rico state hood. So even the democrats within that party will tend toward the conservative side. The other major party PPD is in general in favor of continuing the status quo as a US territory, or some advocating for independence with a free association with the US. This party tends to lean a little more toward the democrats.

Both of the two major parties have Democrats and Republicans in them though, and are more defined based on views of Puerto Rico’s status in regards to the rest of the US. There are also some significant larger additional parties.

…wikipedia.org/…/Political_party_strength_in_Puer…

Anyways, that was why both candidates are pro state hood, it’s the primary for the pro state hood party. And as someone else pointed out, Democrat vs Republican is too simple of a way to view the political situation.

Ranvier,

I know it’s a shit post, but for anyone not aware the FBI used to assist in the persecution of lgbt people and engage in all sorts of surveillance including infiltrating lgbt rights organizations.

vice.com/…/-the-fbi-secretly-tracked-gay-activist…

outhistory.org/exhibits/show/…/2010-2019

So it’s not only a shit post, but a shit post pointing out some very important recent history.

Ranvier,

mulling use of a 1952 law that allows access to the American asylum system to be restricted.

Someday givessomefucks will learn the difference between a law and executive order. Today is not this day though.

Ranvier,

I have this other weird idea. What if like, politicians don’t commit crimes instead? And if they do commit a crime, they go to jail. How about that?

Ranvier,

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump campaign released an ad campaign tomorrow that looked like this with no hint of irony:

https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/a78732b2-7558-4818-b63a-dc368f499a07.webp

Ranvier,

Who even had his charity shut down for fraud. Too many scams to keep track of.

Ranvier,

Dog twitching movements in sleep are really common and usually normal, see below:

www.rover.com/uk/blog/do-dogs-dream/

Sometimes they do even more complex movements or bark. Sleep barks can sound pretty adorable. The twitches can also sometimes be more of a rippling across a muscle.

Here’s a couple examples from YouTube:

youtu.be/Ar3O4hfgmMY?si=-0K7Ahgar3dQCnam

youtu.be/C3SFXwdAqro?si=VK-E7ur5BxcQyFBM

When in doubt, could always film it and show your vet.

Ranvier,

Regardless of whether or not a president pardoning themself is possible, he can’t pardon himself of new york state crimes. Governor Hochul/executive clemency bureau are the only ones that could do that.

Ranvier,

Apparently, assuming he’s voting in Florida, for an out of state felony they use the other state’s rules to determine if he can vote. For New York, you can vote unless you are in prison for a felony (people on parole can vote). So unfortunately unless he’s thrown in jail, he’ll probably be able to vote for himself in Florida.

aclufl.org/…/florida_voting_rights_amendment_4_on…

But hey maybe he goes to jail for something finally. That’d be nice.

Ranvier,

Well they certainly have a leg up and don’t go to jail as often as they should, politicians do go to jail sometimes. Easy to find federal politicians that have on this list:

…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_American_federal_politic…

But yeah I’ll be surprised if Trump ever actually ends up behind bars.

Ranvier,

Only catch is Republicans probably launching some type of legal action to try and stop it.

nysscpa.org/…/13-republican-ags-seek-to-stop-irs-…

No lawsuit launched yet to my knowledge, just sternly worded letters saying please stop helping taxpayers instead of letting predatory companies like Intuit fleece money off of them.

I would expect them to try something soon though with this announced.

Ranvier,

Thank you for clarifying those misconceptions about what recessive and dominant are getting at. A gene isn’t really dominant or recessive. A phenotype (some trait in the organism like blue eyes or a certain disease) can be dominant or recessive though and results from changes in a gene. The same gene could have many different possible mutations, some with dominant effects, some with recessive effects, or some with no effects, depending on the change in the gene and the phenotype.

To go further on that, many recessive diseases are because just one functional copy of many genes are fine from your body’s perspective. Many recessive diseases are due to loss of function of a gene or its protein product, a gene that for a variety of potential reasons no longer leads to a functional protein. Often your body can get by with just one working gene making protein, though both gene copies are generally always being transcribed and trying to be turned into functional protein.

One big exception to this is the x chromosome. Males only have one x and have a y instead of a second x. The y is very tiny and has very few genes compared to the x, quite different from other chromosome pairs which generally just have copies of all the same genes on each other. Early in embryo development for xx individuals, one of the x chromosomes is generally inactivated and not expressed very much, otherwise xx individuals would have double the gene products of all those different genes compared to males, which the body is not expecting for x genes like it does for all the other genes that have a second copy.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation

If you go even further you also get into the idea of penetrance. A gene codes for a protein, but that protein doesn’t exist in isolation, it interacts with lots of other proteins coded by other genes in the body, plus the environment. So for some genetic changes it might be a 100% chance at leading to a certain phenotype (like a disease or a specific trait), or it could be less, like only 70% or 30% chance or something of someone with that change getting that trait, even if it’s still “dominant” (meaning only one gene copy with that change is needed to express the trait).

Ranvier,

Oh yes absolutely op’s x chromosome is expressed. I just meant unlike all the other chromosomes where in general both gene copies on both chromosomes are expressed, in xx individuals usually one of the x chromomes is inactivated and only one of them is being expressed at a time. The x chromosome has many essential genes. This is why we have x linked genetic diseases as well. Often xx individuals are just carriers or more mildly affected since they have two x chromosomes, and xy individuals are more severely affected since they have no backup copies of that gene.

Ranvier, (edited )

Be careful with your concept of physically versus psychologically addicted, it’s not really a 100% seperatable dichotomy like that. Your brain is your brain after all, whether you decide to call something physical or psychological it’s all happening inside the brain. I think because cannabis doesn’t tend to have severe withdrawal effects (like alcohol withdrawal, which can kill you) people assume that means they’re not dependent or that it doesn’t have direct effects on the reward processing centers in the brain to reinforce its use again in the future. That’s what distinguishes addictive drugs from things that are just generally pleasant so we want to do them again, they have a direct chemical interaction with the neural circuits that are supposed to be helping decide if a behavior should be done again or not. Kind of tipping the scales in their favor, making you want to do something again more so than just the pleasentness of the past experience alone would otherwise do. You’re going to have an easier time quitting carrots than you will cannabis, even if you find them both equally pleasant in the moment.

Don’t get me wrong though, cannabis is waaaay less addictive than things like nicotine or alcohol, and has far less harmful effects than those. I think there is a tendency (especially with things like DARE lying about drug dangers when people were younger) to over correct and say things like it’s a miracle drug that’s non addicting and can never harm you and can fix everything wrong in your life! I’m for recreational cannabis legalization, but people should understand it’s actual risks, even though they are much less than other recreational drugs.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069146/

The cumulative probability estimate of transition to dependence was 67.5% for nicotine users, 22.7% for alcohol users, 20.9% for cocaine users, and 8.9% for cannabis users. Half of the cases of dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine were observed approximately 27, 13, 5 and 4 years after use onset, respectively.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7605022/#ref

Cannabis-derived psychoactive compounds such as Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and synthetic cannabinoids directly interact with the reward system and thereby have addictive properties. Cannabinoids induce their reinforcing properties by an increase in tonic dopamine levels through a cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptor–dependent mechanism within the ventral tegmental area. Cues that are conditioned to cannabis smoking can induce drug-seeking responses (ie, craving) by eliciting phasic dopamine events.

Ranvier, (edited )

Yes but saying it’s psychological dependence only is is kind of misleading here. To most reading that would imply that’s just addicting because they like doing it. A carrot does not contain a chemical that directly interacts with the learning and reinforcing centers of the brain, while cannabis does. Cannabis is directly addicting, carrots are not. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.

Also it is your brain that kills you when you have alcohol withdrawal, it’s why alcohol withdrawal is treated with central nervous system depressants. Opiod withdrawal generally won’t be able to kill you but you certainly will feel like you want to die.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • lostlight
  • All magazines