OshaqHennessey

It's an intentional choice, but it's not for style. The EPA passed regulations in the 90s that demanded a certain level of efficiency from all manufacturers. Sounds great in theory, but the execution was very flawed. The problem is, the regulations allow for less efficiency, based on the size and weight of the vehicle. Well, it's much easier to engineer a big, heavy vehicle than it is to engineer a more efficient vehicle, so which option do you think most American car companies chose? That amount of bulk allows them to have a lower rated MPG while still remaining "compliant."

Most modern means of electricity production involve creating heat in some way, then using that heat to boil water, creating steam. That steam is then used to turn a turbine, which generates electricity.

There was never any need for the eagle debate. In the books, the idea of the eagles is explicitly rejected by Gandalf because it would have been too obvious and too risky. Sauron would surely see them riding the eagles, and the eagles could have been corrupted by the ring's power.

I can read just fine. You're asserting that climate change should be embraced because we'll learn to "live with it." I'm pointing out that you're ignoring a giant mountain of evidence that says the best case scenario is that ten percent of our species survives. So, if we're understanding each other correctly, ninety percent of humans dying is the "new normal" you're saying we should be cool with, and I'm not cool with that.

I just realized you're from .ml. Please block me, I can't stand you assholes anyway.

Ok then, it sounds like you think the only way to improve society is to replace its members with ones who are "more sensible," as defined by you. Sorry, but I'm not sure how to help you with that one either.

You're right, capitalism won't make the Earth completely uninhabitable. Many mass extinction events have occurred in our planet's past, and life has always eventually recovered (obviously).

However, capitalism will destroy our planet's ability to sustain our society, and eventually our species, and it is doing so at an alarming rate. To disagree, at this point, is to ignore an amout of scientific evidence so substantial, it amounts similarly to denying the Earth is round.

It sounds like you're saying the only way to better a society is to replace all its members with ones who already agree with you. If so, I'm not real sure how to help you. Good luck with that.

Lottery winnings are paid out from a pool of money that's filled by ticket purchases; every dollar won comes from the pocket of someone who bought a ticket and lost, after the lottery company takes their cut. Even if the winners aren't exploiting the losers directly, the system itself is exploitative, and any winnings are derived from that exploitation. As the old saying goes, "the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math."

No clue, actually. I know you can sort based on votes, but I've never thought about how the main feed works. I'll have to look it up later, if I can remember

On Reddit, the algorithm that determines which posts appear on the main page is heavily influenced by the number of up/down votes for the post and its comments.

That's because it's morally justified to prioritize the needs of many over the needs of a few.