There are other verification procedures in place as well. This is something like a failsafe.

Not going to disagree with that, but you’re responding to somebody who obviously has no background in physics, and it strikes me as a reasonable balance between conceptual (“hand wavy”) and detailed enough.

This is an excellently written response.

It’s utterly bizarre. The customers lose out by receiving an inferior product at the same cost. The workers lose out by having their employment terminated. And even the company loses out by having its reputation squandered. The only people who gain are the executives and the ownership.

Unfortunately, they can multitask

True, but I’m asking what they can do, and that’s far from clear. What do you suggest?

The word you would use is “steep”. It means to put something in a liquid to extract its flavor into the liquid.

Maybe you were thinking about “braise”, which is when you half cover something in a liquid and cook it all just below boiling, but then the liquid turns into a sauce.

I agree completely. It’s clear we’re in need of much stronger constitutional safeguards.

As you pointed out, they attempted to subpoena Musk and the republicans voted it down. They’ve also introduced articles of impeachment, which they successfully put through last time only to have senate republicans refuse to convict on the basis that trump was no longer president.

Politely, I think this comment is unhelpful. What do you propose that they do? Our government is based to a large degree on the assumption of good faith. The Supreme Court, for example, has power because the constitution says it does. They don’t have the capacity to actually enforce the rulings they hand down.

The current president has basically said that he doesn’t care about the constitution, and is just concerned with stealing power for himself and his cronies. Elections are supposed to be our mechanism for dealing with that.

I’m aware. The collateral for the credits are EV sales, hence my shorthand.

You misread the sheet slightly. The total profit for the year was $7.1 billion, of which $2.8 billion was renewable energy credits. I.e. their profit would have only been $4.3 billion.

You are. Without the EV credits, Tesla would have folded years ago.

Are you saying his killing was justified?

No, that’s an incorrect summation of one part of my argument.

The response to your comment is in my second sentence.

I think you missed my point entirely.

We all just learned from Walgreens’ latest report that placing barriers between consumers and the goods they’re trying to purchase reduces sales, and CVS’ response to this problem is to add a login requirement.

Where is this language taken from?

Pensive Chad is my new idol

We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out

This point is hugely important, but not for the reason that you intended.

You are mistaken on an essential aspect of your argument: calling out bigoted or discriminatory views out is the definition of not tolerating them. At the same time, the bigotry you’re describing - not permitting people to exist in open society - is exactly the reason we cannot tolerate those kind of views.

The essence of bigotry is that entire categories of individuals don’t deserve the same rights as others. People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue because they believe that their opponents don’t deserve the right to be part of the discussion.

One side is saying that we cannot tolerate these views. The other side is saying that they will not tolerate our humanity.

This isn’t a perspective that is subject to change by reason.