Absolutely. But last I checked Arkansas and Oklahoma are near the bottom as far as high speed chargers availability; I live near the border now.
I'm hoping that the Volt lasts at least another decade, and the EV situation may have changed quite a bit by then. I might even find myself in a situation where I could not own a car and still do everything I want to.
I go with a ponytail, and haven't had even a trim in 2 years.
If I had my preference I'd go in about once every few months to have more vivid hair dye applied, and get a trim then.
I wish we had time-limited blocks / mutes on Lemmy. I use them all the time on Mastodon to exit a conversation when I am getting to short. If it really matters, I can revisit after a fortnight of reflection.
Also, while other locations in the Fediverse might disable access to unauthenticated persons, comments and post in Lemmy are generally public in that way. So, a blocked user could simply logout (or visit from a different instance) to see the content.
Also, as a third-party I do want someone (e.g. a fact checker) to be able reply to a comment with more information, so that I can see it, even if the commenter doesn't want to see replies (from the "woke mob" or wikipedians, e.g.).
I understand some people think the reply thread under their comments is somehow "owned" and should be "controlled" by them, but I don't agree. I think this should also be true in most places on the Fediverse, tho it isn't (as I understand it) on Mastodon (and the like).
I also wanted an plug in electric (or hybrid-electric) vehicle, and this was 2019 when I bought my Volt.
I honestly don't know what I'd buy today. I really think the Volt was/is a great car for me, because I could almost do my daily commute on one charge and could easily charge to full overnight, but it was also nice to be able to road-trip 6 hours to OKC or St. Louis in my car instead of a rental. My situation has changed quite a bit from then to now, and I think something purely electric might work, but this part of the country is really quite lacking when it comes to charging stations -- but I also do longer trips much less frequently and maybe I could just rent a car for that.
At one point I really wanted to get a Delorean -- the angles, the materials, the doors, all very cool; plus BttF is a nice trilogy that reminds me of being a child. The cybertruck hits a lot of the same notes, so I can understand.
But, honestly, even my current car has too much central monitoring, data collection, and even control than I wanted. I really only bought it because my (the current) previous car was quickly dying.
I knew from Teslas claims and their other cars that there was just too much of that fiddly bullshit involved. So even without considering Elmu, a cybertruck was a clear No.
I disagree with the "meme" but not for that "reason". Also, that "reason" is an untrue statement.
Patient: Just pull the fucking nail out.
Intern: No, that would definitely kill you.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don't get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
Yes, the resolution to the "paradox" of tolerance is that (a) "the intolerant" is anyone that would deny human rights to any other human (b) the intolerant must be denied political power since they will use it to create an intolerant society.
Tolerance doesn't justify political violence.
However, defense of self or others CAN justify violence against the intolerant. The threat of increased stochastic violence due to inflammatory rhetoric is not as clear as a person stating their intent to kill and then brandishing a firearm, but both can be mortal threats. At the very least acts of political violence CAN be justified by the actor to a jury of their peers. Denying a political violence can ever be justified (I'm looking at you Bernie) ignores history and supports every authoritarian regime.
I'm not saying that the Kirk murder was justified, but ... I'd be willing to hear a defendant out as a jurist or jury member.
Here are two lies that is it useful to believe:
But, maybe that's just my privilege talking. My skills, interests, and opportunities aligned well with the system for at least 30 years.
antidisestablishmentarianism /= establishmentarianism