joshhsoj1902

joined 1 year ago
[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 16 points 6 hours ago

Any one who assumes that another party is going to blanket support a non-confidence vote doesn't understand how minority governments work.

These are times when other parties have the leverage to influence what bills are being passed.

If things got bad enough that no other parties agreed with direction then ya we would be heading to vote, but realistically things aren't that bad right now, they could always be better, but it's not bad enough to just throw away leverage.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 11 points 13 hours ago

What a terrible graph. Market share as a percent on one side being compared to absolutely numbers on the other.

The author could draw any conclusions they wanted by just scaling the axis differently.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago

I looked it up and it seems like the survival rate of new businesses is about 78% in the US.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/1-year-survival-rates-for-new-business-establishments-by-year-and-location.htm

The first year seems to be the hardest and each year after that survival rates get better and better.

This data suggests that after 10 years nearly 35% of business are still in business.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/34-7-percent-of-business-establishments-born-in-2013-were-still-operating-in-2023.htm

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

How many new business fail?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 8 points 21 hours ago

I think that just shows you don't understand how to read statistics.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

That image shows revenue not profit

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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?

 

The arguments being made by opponents only make sense if you ignore some awkward facts

 

If Canada axed its carbon tax– and rebates- this is how different households would gain or lose.

High-income households would tend to be the biggest winners, lower-income households hurt the most

view more: next ›