It can. It would require the engine to be a good production version (which it may be if it has the miles and hasn't already had problems), good maintenance through its life, and a bit of luck. Would most cars, probably not. There's too many variables to cause original efficiency to decline, one big one being typical abuse and neglect.
Rhaedas
joined 1 year ago
Subplot of "Soylent Green". I used to think it was the main plot, but then learned the problem wasn't Soylent Green or its makeup, but the indifference of the people throughout the movie when they learned things were not as they appeared. Old movie, still applicable.
I'm more cynical because I think that high up are safe. Somewhere in the middle, the millionaires and small business, are probably the new targets. The change could also be simply because the lower end that are easy to do also more and more can't even pay the fines, so it's dried up.
Which begs the question why this is a new thing, going after the bigger fish. I'll bet part of the answer is lawyers, i.e going after lower income is easier because they don't have ways to defend themselves. Or access to methods in hiding the money.
Here's the problems with net zero. First, it's a marketing term more than anything. But assuming it was an obtainable goal, it requires carbon removal techniques that have been shown by prototype and basic math to not be scalable to the task. Making another assumption that such emissions or their equivalent could be removed, we would need to go far beyond net zero into negative emissions to start chipping away at not only continued natural emissions from the mentioned runaway feedback loops already set in motion, but the historical carbon that still remains fro the last century or so of our pollution. If just net zero isn't scalable, the latter is magnitudes greater and impossible.
Net zero is the new "1.5 limit". It's an easy to remember catch phrase for a goal post on wheels. As we pass the old 1.5 mark the new one is used to distract from continued growth of population and consumption, catering to the wired tendencies of our species to procrastinate when danger isn't immediately in front of us. "They'll fix it".
I think the idea that if we can reduce our emissions warming and all that comes with it will also stop is also a subtle marketing being spread because most people don't understand that we're not the sole source of warming, we were just a small catalyst that started the reaction. And with most chemical reactions, at some point the catalyst isn't needed any more to sustain the rest of the reaction. We could stop all emissions right now (whether that be voluntary or not) and the Earth will continue to warm for decades or more just from environmental inertia and breakdown of the system, and then from the addition feedbacks that starts.
The only "fix" for the CO2 issue (which is only part of the problem, but the focus here) is to remove and sequester enough carbon to bring us down to 300 ppm or less, aka preindustrial levels. Put everything burned by our industrial age back into the ground. Entropy alone says that won't happen, calculating the numbers of how much carbon that means is mindblowing. We throw around the giga- prefix like it's nothing, and yet the total carbon we would have to remove gets into the tera- and possibly peta- levels. It's insane.
Net zero is a scam, nothing more. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't change, but don't believe anyone selling you a solution, as change means adaptation and preparation for a different and hostile world, not some science "fix" that will let us keep doing what we've always done.
I'm sure my rant that started as a short reply will get some responses of "what about ___?" Good luck showing me something new that changes the basic math of the problem. It's looking into some of these potential solutions and finding out the real problem that turned me into a hardened skeptic of anything "new". Show me the math that can tackle the numbers, then I'll consider it. In the end you can't fool Nature.
I think at least in TOS (where red shirts originated, perhaps statistically unfairly) all of the red shirts would get a name tagged to them before things went wrong. That seemed to be more of a "red" flag to me, get the regulars in a landing party, oh, and Mr. Johnson too. Yeah, he's toast.
Certainly by now someone has done a breakdown comparison of the many series - which series was more deadly to the "new" guy in the group? I don't think TOS was the worst, and no, whole ships don't count like Wolf 359.
We're still trying to recover from Reaganomics backlash.
USB->PS/2 adapters
That caused a flashback, as I haven't seen those in years (but I know I have a few still somewhere lol). It also made me think...I can not recall ever having to do the "1-2-3" tries when hooking a USB mouse or keyboard into those before I plugged it all into the back of the PC. Which makes me lean towards blaming the socket installation and lack of reference for a lot of the woes, not the cord or flashdrive (which you can see).
Time traveler: "Yes."
"A case with four stones in it! Not one or two or three but four! Four stones! What the hell am I supposed to do with an empty case?"
The series started out good as him literally being reborn as a new person via the Raiders way of life. Then it seemed to go into him seeking a retirement plan with passive income using the open spot Jabba left. That Mando's cameo stole the show showed how dull it had become. I actually loved the idea of him injecting purpose into the vandals by hiring them, but did they have to be so campy? Jesus, I hadn't thought of that spin-shot in a while...why?
If, and a big if that happened, the rule that one vote to remove a Speaker is still there, and the GOP would waste not even a minute invoking it. Mainly because it would probably be undone soon after a Democrat gets the position.