this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
81 points (97.6% liked)

Asklemmy

53505 readers
380 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Approximate location, price and date?

Edit: report back in a week any change if you remember.

E2: went up 9ยข since I posted this morning. $3.19 now.

E3: $3.30 now. ~20ยข in a day, 50ยข in 4 days.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[โ€“] Hazy@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't. If it was really a concern it'd be better to beat them to the technology

[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

yes, it would be better, but we didn't because we lack the industrial capacity to provide both at scale and affordably so. so instead we just doubled down on fossil fuels and carved out legal corporate & governmental protections for harming people that we predict will get fucked over by climate change.

[โ€“] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But that's just handing China the advantage without a fight, it doesn't slow them down at all. That's why it makes no sense.

[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

we slowed them down by using super high tariffs on electric vehicles and solar panels and it makes sense from a geopolitical perspective. the united states & europe uses its economic leverage to control the world and letting people buy chinese electric vehicles, solar panels, etc. would give the chinese this same type of leverage.

trump, biden, obama, both bushes, etc. consider china to be the enemy, so forcing people to stay dependent on fossil fuels instead of green energy is a way of making sure that the united states stays in control; the same is true for europe.

that's also why we regime changed venezuela, libya, iran, etc. because they started selling oil using other currencies besides the american dollar and that would make the united states lose some of this leverage too.

[โ€“] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

But that's what im saying -- high tarrifs doesn't skow down technological innovation in China, of course they're way ahead of us now on EV technology. Yes, they did it to keep power over their United Statesian subjects, by keeping us in the dark they have more control over us. China didn't slow down at all because of that.

[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Exactly. So it wasn't that they ignored navigating, it was that their hegemony took priority.

[โ€“] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess my point is they used to have a lot more power in China than they do now. It didn't have to be this way, the oil billionaires and automobile CEO could have found a way to monopolize renewables and EV technology at home too. They just operated off of fear and laziness instead of bravery and industriousness.

[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm glad they didn't; the morally bankrupt and depraved lengths to which American capitalists will go to for profit is slowly killing this world and they're in full knowledge of that fact.

They can afford the finest talent money can buy and I bet that China's primacy had little impact on their plans. I also bet that's why they opted to delay instead of deny China; it doesn't matter anymore.

[โ€“] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean it's the classic revolutionary's dilemma -- does bringing the system down, which causes incredible amounts of death and suffering for the poor, worth it in the long run? IMHO it never is, because the system always finds the most painful and evil ways to go down, with no guarantee the next system is any better.

Ideally the system itself improves over time like we saw happen in the 20th century in a lot of other countries, and social democracy takes over peacefully. But sometimes the capitalists won't let that happen and insist on a tragic and violent decline instead.

[โ€“] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

with no guarantee the next system is any better.

there are living, breathing examples of better systems out there.

Yes of course, doesn't mean the leaders of the faction who win the civil war will install them.