Dragging the US into the EV age

Since I'm on the verge of getting an EV, (a Tesla Model 3, Long Range, dual motor), I'm sort of jazzed about electric cars. One thing that shocked me was poll data indicating that over half of people looking for a new car are interested in an all electric or plug-in hybrid. No wonder the wait time for my 1st choice, a Hyundai Ionic 5 went from ~6 months to ~20-24 months. That forced me to reluctantly (because Musk is what he is, an unpleasant fellow) look at the Tesla Model 3. 

At least with Tesla, the wait time was a mere ~3 months. Well, it used to be ~3 months about 3 months ago when I ordered the car. Tesla has stopped taking orders for the Model 3 because demand exploded and the company cannot build them fast enough to come close to keeping up.

The Verge posted an interesting article about EVs. 

California is ready to drag the rest of the US into the EV age

The state is prepared to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035

California is poised to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles — a far-reaching policy that is likely to reverberate throughout the rest of the country and the world.

On Thursday, the California Air Resources Board will issue the new rules that were first rolled out by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020, which would require 100 percent of new cars sold in the state to be free of carbon emissions, according to The New York Times.

The rule would phase in over time, with 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold by 2026 and 68 percent by 2030. California says that over 16 percent of new car sales were “zero-emission vehicles” in 2022 — up from 12.41 percent last year and 7.78 percent in 2020.  

California’s stance on new car sales is extremely consequential given the state’s status as a standard bearer for clean air regulations. To date, 14 other states have adopted its progressive zero-emission vehicle program for passenger vehicles, which was launched in the early 1990s and has spurred automakers to develop hybrid and fully electric cars. California is also one of the largest markets for car sales in the world, with nearly 15 million registered vehicles on the road and 1.85 million new vehicle registrations in 2021.

Zero-emission means the vehicle is all electric, not hybrid gas and electric. It really does look like the US is going to go into the EV age. Not because government wants it, but because enough people want it. Battery technology is going to need to improve significantly.

Qs: About 2 years ago, who would have thought it possible for a state like CA to act to ban gas engine cars by 2035, (i) without riots in the streets, which is (ii) a massive change, and (iii) in the midterm future?

What are gas stations going to do, sell ice, tater chips, questionable sushi and beer? 

Who would have thunk that Germaine, being the the old ossified fossilly gasbag he is, would be so close to being on the edge of a major change like this?

The Model 3 in my color, 

with the surprisingly effective 

aerodynamic wheel covers

(without the $15,000 autopilot

software - thanks, but I'll drive myself)

Toward a workable pacifism

 I am a pacifist–with qualms.

As a working definition, let’s say pacifism is opposition to engaging in warfare under any circumstances.

It is easy for me to dismiss as morally wrong every US war except one: WWII. WWII has every appearance of being a necessary resistance to a clear evil. None of our other wars meet that criterion for me.

But then comes Ukraine.

Like WWII, Ukraine challenges my pacifism to the core. If ever a people had a right to take up arms, this is one of those times. In apparent violation of my own moral compass, I cheer the destruction of Russian forces (read: killing). I instinctively support the US and other countries’ military aid to Ukraine. These are very un-pacifist sentiments.

And yet, as the war drags on and large swaths of the country lie in ruin, I am reminded of why I am a pacifist in the first place.

The US fancies itself the great protector of peace and freedom; yet in most of our wars, we have been the aggressor. It’s easy to oppose that. But when your country is invaded and raped–wouldn’t it be wrong to not take up arms in self-defense? Don’t we need a deterrent to others’ aggression? To put it another way, isn’t pacifism unworkable? To me, this is the only real challenge to pacifism. And let’s admit it: that’s a pretty serious challenge.

I think in Ukraine in 2022, the answer is yes–a pacifist response would be unworkable, and their choices were to fight or submit. The world’s choices are to provide military aid or see Ukraine fall. But maybe it doesn’t need to remain that way. Maybe humans can create an alternative–a workable pacifism. 

You would have to be prepared to accept the unacceptable. Many of the non-violent resisters would likely be raped, tortured and killed. But then, that’s already what happens in war. Would it be possible to devise a non-violent strategy that ultimately rendered military aggression untenable? If so, what would it look like? Would it be worth it?

I think the core requirement is you would need a strategy to make a country ungovernable by a hostile power. You would need to organize and prepare your entire society for the eventuality of a foreign attempt at occupation–and have plenty of non-violent strategies to gum up the works. You would need to train the bureaucrats & technocrats on how to sabotage the occupier’s plans, and train the populace as a whole how to deal with invading soldiers who can torture, kill and rape you. Non-cooperation, sabotage, and non-violent confrontation would be key. Make plans for calling a crowd of 100,000 people to demonstrate & occupy as needed.

Also, it seems such a strategy could theoretically be devised and deployed in advance of disarmament, and disarmament could be done gradually. 

I am not well-read on pacifist theory & philosophy. I expect these questions have been explored by others. Is what I’m suggesting pure nonsense? I’m interested in your thoughts and reading suggestions.

Note: Thanks to Germaine for granting me publishing permission, and sorry it took so long to get this out there.

How the metaverse is going to work us over

Zuckerberg in the early days

(he hasn't changed, but now he’s just very   

guarded about making comments like that) 

A Wash. Post opinion piece by an information scientist at the RAND Corporation opines:

Here’s a plausible scenario that could soon take place in the metaverse, the online virtual reality environments under rapid development by Mark Zuckerberg and other tech entrepreneurs: A political candidate is giving a speech to millions of people. While each viewer thinks they are seeing the same version of the candidate, in virtual reality they are actually each seeing a slightly different version. For each and every viewer, the candidate’s face has been subtly modified to resemble the viewer.

This is done by blending features of each viewer’s face into the candidate’s face. The viewers are unaware of any manipulation of the image. Yet they are strongly influenced by it: Each member of the audience is more favorably disposed to the candidate than they would have been without any digital manipulation.

This is not speculation. It has long been known that mimicry can be exploited as a powerful tool for influence. A series of experiments by Stanford researchers has shown that slightly changing the features of an unfamiliar political figure to resemble each voter made people rate politicians more favorably.

The experiments took pictures of study participants and real candidates in a mock-up of an election campaign. The pictures of each candidate were modified to resemble each participant. The studies found that even if 40 percent of the participant’s features were blended into the candidate’s face, the participants were entirely unaware the image had been manipulated.

In the metaverse, it’s easy to imagine this type of mimicry at a massive scale.

At the heart of all deception is emotional manipulation. Virtual reality environments, such as Facebook’s (now Meta’s) metaverse, will enable psychological and emotional manipulation of its users at a level unimaginable in today’s media.  

I have been working on problems of deception, disinformation and artificial intelligence for close to four decades, including two terms as a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). We are not even close to being able to defend users against the threats posed by this coming new medium. In virtual reality, malicious actors will be able to take the age-old dark arts of deception and influence to new heights — or depths.  

The metaverse will usher in a new age of mass customization of influence and manipulation. It will provide a powerful set of tools to manipulate us effectively and efficiently. Even more remarkable will be the ability to combine tailored individual and mass manipulation in a way that has never before been possible.  

Society did not start paying serious attention to classical social media — meaning Facebook, Twitter and the like — until things got completely out of hand. Let us not make the same mistake as social media blossoms into the metaverse.

Hm. It sounds like a lot of fun is coming our way in the Metaverse. Make no mistake, if there are better ways to deceive and manipulate us, those free speech tools will be used ruthlessly against us.

I like the way this guy thinks and writes. He sounds like me. Really, no reality modification involved. I could have written the information content of those two highlighted sentences, because they reflect my thinking and beliefs. Honestly, who else calls propaganda the dark arts or talks about defense against the dark arts?* 

* IMFO (in my firm opinion), teaching defense against the dark arts is urgently needed in American public schools. 

For better or worse, my mind is not alone. In addition to the sagacious herd here at Dissident Politics, there are at least some fellow travelers out there in the real universe. 

Don’t trust him or you will be 

fooled, used and betrayed

A short summary of the current US Supreme Court

That speaks for itself. Too bad it's all true. 

Acknowledgement: Thanks for Freeze Peach for brining this to my attention.

Are Americans are waking up to the Republican Party's threat of fascism?

Newsweek writes:

For the first time in recent months, registered voters in the U.S. say that the top issue on their minds is the threat facing democracy, according to a poll from NBC released Sunday. Previous NBC polls in March and May showed that the top issue on the minds of those surveyed was cost of living.

The poll this time found that 21 percent of voters ranked "threats to democracy" as the most critical matter facing the country, while 16 percent chose "cost of living," which ranked as second. In third was "jobs and the economy," with 14 percent.  

The poll's responses regarding the investigations into Trump's conduct fell largely along party lines, with 92 percent of Democratic voters and 61 percent of independents saying they believe the investigations should continue, while only 21 percent of Republican voters support the ongoing investigations, according to NBC.

Didn't expect that. Maybe I misjudged the American people's apparent lack of concern about democracy. I hope so. Poll results in November should clarify that bit of personal confusion. But, at least I didn't misjudge Republican voters. They are all in on fascism, religious and racial bigotry and corruption.

Mainstream media's crippling weakness

Wikipedia: False equivalence is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

The profit motive is incompatible with unfettered professional journalism, a point I have argued here for years. I argue it again. The AP writes about CNN cancelling its Reliable Sources news program hosted for nine years by Brian Stelter:

Stelter said that it was not partisan to stand up for decency, democracy and dialogue.

“It’s not partisan to stand up to demagogues,” he said. “It’s required. It’s patriotic. We must make sure we don’t give platforms to those who are lying to our faces. But we also must make sure we are representing the total spectrum of debate and representing what’s going on in the country and the world.”

It was Stelter’s most direct reference to what is believed to be the reason for his demise; CNN hasn’t talked publicly about it. Since he started this spring, new CNN chief executive Chris Licht has made clear he wants to tone down opinion, particularly as it made Republicans resistant to the network.

Stelter, who wrote a book about Fox News Channel and was frequently critical of Fox, was a lightning rod for conservatives’ complaints.

Some of his final “Reliable Sources” guests were more direct. Eric Deggans, NPR television critic, said he hopes CNN will continue to give viewers context and not be reduced to false equivalency. “Just the facts” isn’t enough, he said.

In my opinion, Reliable Sources was reasonably reliable and not particularly controversial. It was mostly grounded in fact and defensible reasoning. That the Republican Party has gone off its rocker and turned to demagoguery, mendacity, bigotry and fascism is not debatable any more. That radical right crackpots and liars vehemently dispute undisputable facts does not change fact and truth into falsehoods and lies.

CNN has caved in to the profit motive at the expense of the public interest. Unspun professional journalism is simply not compatible with the profit motive. CNN abandons unspun truth for money and in the process betrays democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties.

Q: Should the total spectrum of debate treat lies and crackpottery the same as truth and sound reasoning, or does that amount to false equivalence or some other form of flawed reasoning?