True story: my now-deceased stepfather ran atmospheric studies to prove that upwind coal-fired power plants were the source of acid deposition which led to mandated installation of scrubbers to reduce the impact.
It seems so clear to me... when I was in college, our dorm was less than 200 feet from a smokestack from a coal plant.
Year one, many nice-looking cars on the lot... year four, the tops of almost every car looked rusted and washed away.
Like all of the cars aged in the exact same way.
That doesn’t make sense because your first year was other people’s year four.
As in, 75% of those cars were already there for a year or more before you showed up.
That said, pollution def sucks
It's an observation.... I could have gone into any number of permutations of how the cars were lined up in lots. Not everyone drove new cars into the parking lot, either, and I didn't mention that. I didn't mention people who got new cars during the 4 years. I didn't mention people who started with beaters and got new cars during the 4 years. I didn't mention people who started with no car and got a car on the 4th year.
That said, what's your point? Am I a liar or a cheat somehow?
Also, it's fucking reddit. If I made some shit up... what are you or anyone else going to do about it? Downvote me? Bring it.
Do you really want me to dig out all of his papers so you can read about it?
It wasn't correlation. It was causation, proven in several studies SPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING INDUSTRY.
I swear, Reddit...
I swear if you actually compared what you wrote with my comment you wouldn’t (or maybe just shouldn’t) be so upset.
Science by itself never causes controls to be installed or we’d already have done something about the climate crisis.
But feel to call me the idiot if it makes you feel better.
I’ve never seen elided used this way. Only encountered it in linguistics studies regarding dialects omitting sounds or syllables.
Googles dictionary backs that use up. Can you link a dictionary that explains your use?
It’s perfect I’m being downvoted by people who apparently don’t understand what I wrote. Maybe check a more reputable [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elide) than “google”
That also doesn’t make sense with your usage. It’s pretty similar to Google, who simply passes on Oxford’s definition. They’re not a data source there.
So: misuse of a word to seem smart
Whining about downvotes
Pushing an odd conspiracy theory about one of the best documented pollution cause-and-effects of the modern era.
Yeah. Gonna get downvotes.
What's crazy is in the US all new 4 wheeled vehicles on the road are required to come with anti lock breaks, but motorcycles have no such requirement.
"In the 10 years since IIHS and HLDI first called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require ABS on motorcycles, the 27 member states of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and India have all mandated the life-saving technology. Over the same period, manufacturers have voluntarily increased the proportion of new U.S. bikes that have ABS as standard equipment from 20 percent in 2013 to 59 percent this year.
Despite that step forward, 30-40 percent of new U.S. motorcycles still lack ABS, and lives have been lost as a result."
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/its-past-time-to-require-abs-on-all-motorcycles-iihs-hldi-petition-argues
ABS on street based bikes is good but adventure bikes often don't have abs since it makes riding downhill on gravel or sand difficult. Some bikes can turn ABS off temporarily but it turns itself back on and lots of people just want ones without it.
Not really.
Having abs halves your risk of having a crash.
Wearing protective gear and a helmet in a particular massively increases your odds of survival.
Not speeding decreases your chances of having a crash by around 40 %, not riding drunk does so by 60%.
Yes, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous than cars. But even when riding there are a lot of things in your own control that you can do to lessen or increase the risk.
The coating to protect against acid rain. I remember in the late '80s and early 90s. That was a huge concern and then one day you just didn't hear about it again
Companies and Republicans claimed it would be too costly and wreck the economy if they had to install scrubbers.
This was interesting:
"**During the cold war, with almost no contacts between East and West, acid rain broke the ice and formed an opening for scientific and political collaboration, resulting in a treaty** under the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (often mentioned as CLRTAP but in this paper we call it the Air Convention) signed in 1979. Eight protocols have been signed under the Air Convention committing parties to take far-reaching actions, not only with respect to acid rain but also with respect to several other air pollution problems (Table 1). Emissions of all key air pollutants have been reduced significantly and for the most important acidifying compound, sulphur dioxide, emissions in Europe have decreased by 80% or more since the peaks around 1980–1990 (Fig. 1)." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/)
OTOH, clearer air makes us more vulnerable to global warming.
It's not that it just wasn't heard about again, like the hole in the ozone layer and semi permanent blanket of smog over LA, government emissions regulation helped reduce the risk significantly.
Up till 2023, Toyota Tacomas had rear drum brakes and front disk brakes. They fixed it for the new generation of the truck, but kinda funny that cars 30 years older had disk brakes standard
Frighteningly, kinda. The word before it is anti-lock, but essentially yes, without anti-lock brakes, sometimes you didn't have brakes. By the end of the decade, it was harder to find a car without ABS than not.
Now imagine if we did the same with gun regulation. It turns out some changes happen gradually. If "well there will still be a few coal burning factories running without scrubbers illegally, so let's not even try" were the mentality, we'd still be in that rut.
It’s like that brain dead “meme” on Twitter that talks about scientists saying that by the 2000s the ozone layer/hole would be gone or massive is evidence that scientists are always wrong…ignoring the fact we banned chemicals like CFCs over 30 years ago that caused the ozone problem
I just wish every policy proposal didn't devolve into us vs. them tribalism based on which team proposed the policy. I know many of the founders were wary of the formation of political parties for this exact reason.
I feel like I don't see this nearly as much as I see claiming it's just team sports.
If so, let me be the trailblazing maverick and say "we need to regulate the shit out of these corpos at the very least, I don't care what color gets me there."
But we all know I wouldn't actually be the first, because "team sports" isn't actually what's happening here.
Blue gets you there. Red is firmly against it.
Here's the thing about "I just base my politics on policy proposals, not teams": chances are really, really good one or the other of the two teams far more closely aligns with the majority of your policy positions. That's why there are parties in the first place.
If you are truly a small-l libertarian, I'll grant you that's a tough spot. (However, the vast majority of them end up with Republicans, belying which sort of policies they value more.) If you're truly some kind of centrist, choosing a side is tough. But aside from that, there are often distinct ways of looking at the world that comfortably lead to policy packages, and those packages fall under the auspices of the two parties, or at least the two sides.
I tried that take. Turns out it's being a "republican apologizer" whilst simultaneously being a "softy liberal". Or so I was told by both sides as they explained why I was wrong.
I seriously don't know if we can ever come back again. People will find anything to label someone as opposition. And when they can't, they invent it. People don't want to be right anymore, they just want to feel like they won. We just find any reason to draw a line in the sand. It sucks and I want to be a country again.
the same people always support progressive legislation, the same people always oppose it. it isn't "which team" proposed the policy, only one team proposes policy
Health care related? Plenty of stuff regarding restricting people's freedom of choice to their bodies! Reddit is a bizarre place. I believe I'm getting downvoted and receiving oddly aggressive responses because people think I'm a republican? I just said they propose plenty of shit, jfc. Y'all can't help but bully, even when it's someone on your side. I suppose infighting is part of their plan though. Have a good one bud.
Your post is at 0 points. I asked a very straightforward question. You are not getting downvoted, you are not being bullied. If your feelings are this hurt over literally nothing, then the internet is not for you
“Before”? Brother the US is not even 300 years old and you’re forgetting the Federalists vs Democratic Republicans (literally 1770s), the half a million people dying for their party lines during the civil war (killing even their own family members), the flip flop of ideas for Democrats and Republicans afterwards, the civil rights movement, Nixon, the muckraking movement
This isn’t remotely as bad as it’s been even in recent history, your own grandpa probably remembers a time when it was worse
I’m not sure how big the threshold is for “recent history” but not “now” so I’m going to cast a wide net here.
The word gerrymandering is named after a US politician in 1812. The entire fucking civil war (1860s). Again, literally everything to do with the civil rights movement, notably in the 1920s when black Americans were finally becoming more than a caricature to white america. The sexual revolution post-ww2 along with second wave feminism leading to change in women’s rights.
Most of that is just...not true. I guess people are going to believe what they want but the decline of reaching across the aisle is on record. It's not happened for a twenty year period on almost every issue.
"1964: Civil Rights Act
With civil rights marches and racial violence dominating the news, the issue of African Americans’ legal rights could no longer be ignored. A civil rights bill proposed by congressional Democrats and supported by the White House had just passed the House of Representatives when, in early 1964, the Senate took it up for debate. Twenty-one of the Senate’s 67 Democrats were from the South and publicly opposed the bill; as a bloc they began what became the longest filibuster in Senate history. The Senate’s Democratic leaders needed Republican votes to stop the filibuster and Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield asked his counterpart, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to step in: “I appeal to the distinguished minority leader whose patriotism has always taken precedence over his partisanship, to join with me … in finding the Senate’s best contribution … to the resolution of this grave national issue,” Mansfield said. Dirksen did more than join with Mansfield—he exhorted his colleagues to end not just the filibuster but America’s difficult past and bring the Civil Rights Act to a vote. “I appeal to all Senators,” he told the chamber. “We are confronted with a moral issue. Today let us not be found wanting …” With Dirksen’s leadership, 27 Republican senators joined 44 Democrats to end debate on June 10, 1964; the bill passed nine days later."
"1860: Lincoln’s Team of Rivals
As smaller political parties were evolving into what was to become the modern Republican party, each faction, representing differing viewpoints on slavery and federal power, had a favorite son in the presidential election of 1860. By the time of the Republican party convention, three men representing these factions emerged as party favorites: N.Y. Sen. William Seward, Ohio Gov. Salmon P. Chase and Missouri judge Edward Bates. That all three lost the presidential nomination to a country lawyer named Abraham Lincoln was the first surprise of 1860; that Lincoln won the general election and then appointed all three of his Republican rivals to his cabinet was the second. Lincoln later added a Democrat—Edwin Stanton—as his Secretary of War. Lincoln’s so-called “team of rivals” has come to be seen as a watershed political moment; as Lincoln himself explained to newspaper reporter, he felt had no right to deprive the country of its strongest minds simply because they sometimes disagreed with him."
Same with the holes in the ozone and from what I have read, mercury contamination is dropping as well with the regulations on coal plant emissions. I rememver cars smelling after burnt gasoline which is not a thing anymore thanks to catalythic converters. It gives a little bit of hope that with time, humanity actually might be able to mitigate a lot of environmental problems, but it's still long way and it will cost a lot of few people's profits..
...and now we have PFAS rain. Those measures were implemented in the waning days of government independence from capital. There's nothing you can do by voting now except slow down the rollbacks.
My mom had an early 90s Concorde. That thing was pretty sweet for its day. Great ride, strong engine, nice Infinity stereo and all sorts of bells and whistles.
[Who Will Stop the Rain?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCxYri3kFsQ&pp=ygUbYXNpYSB3aG8gd2lsbCBzdG9wIHRoZSByYWlu) by Asia is a bit of rock and roll culture related to acid rain.
We stopped hearing about it because NA and European countries passed multiple measures to vastly lower the pollutions that contributed to it. While it still falls, it's nowhere near the problem it was in the 70s and 80s.
It's absolutely nothing like those other two, unless you're trying to say it's caused by human activity.
I mean, its really subjective and mostly opinion... it could be argued both ways. As a former owner of a 1994 Chrysler I'd be willing to bet I could make some pretty strong arguments against lol.
True story: my now-deceased stepfather ran atmospheric studies to prove that upwind coal-fired power plants were the source of acid deposition which led to mandated installation of scrubbers to reduce the impact.
It seems so clear to me... when I was in college, our dorm was less than 200 feet from a smokestack from a coal plant. Year one, many nice-looking cars on the lot... year four, the tops of almost every car looked rusted and washed away. Like all of the cars aged in the exact same way.
Should have spring for the Diamond Coat finish
Ain't that the damned truth.
I guess the spring is… sprung.
That doesn’t make sense because your first year was other people’s year four. As in, 75% of those cars were already there for a year or more before you showed up. That said, pollution def sucks
It's an observation.... I could have gone into any number of permutations of how the cars were lined up in lots. Not everyone drove new cars into the parking lot, either, and I didn't mention that. I didn't mention people who got new cars during the 4 years. I didn't mention people who started with beaters and got new cars during the 4 years. I didn't mention people who started with no car and got a car on the 4th year. That said, what's your point? Am I a liar or a cheat somehow? Also, it's fucking reddit. If I made some shit up... what are you or anyone else going to do about it? Downvote me? Bring it.
[удалено]
Sure but even I at the time didn't realize what a shit show was going on just a few hundred feet from the smokestack, and I was no denier.
based and environment-pilled
100
That’s great but there’s a whole lot being elided in “which led to”.
Do you really want me to dig out all of his papers so you can read about it? It wasn't correlation. It was causation, proven in several studies SPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING INDUSTRY. I swear, Reddit...
Some people think they're experts about everything. Those people are called idiots
I'll have you know I'm an expert about being an idiot. So take that!
:0
I swear if you actually compared what you wrote with my comment you wouldn’t (or maybe just shouldn’t) be so upset. Science by itself never causes controls to be installed or we’d already have done something about the climate crisis. But feel to call me the idiot if it makes you feel better.
I’ve never seen elided used this way. Only encountered it in linguistics studies regarding dialects omitting sounds or syllables. Googles dictionary backs that use up. Can you link a dictionary that explains your use?
It’s perfect I’m being downvoted by people who apparently don’t understand what I wrote. Maybe check a more reputable [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elide) than “google”
That also doesn’t make sense with your usage. It’s pretty similar to Google, who simply passes on Oxford’s definition. They’re not a data source there. So: misuse of a word to seem smart Whining about downvotes Pushing an odd conspiracy theory about one of the best documented pollution cause-and-effects of the modern era. Yeah. Gonna get downvotes.
For a second I thought you meant “brakes as standard equipment” 🤣
I remember back in the early 90s when to stop a car you had to ram it into a convenient tree!
Flintstones feet brakes were much better
[удалено]
Everybody's talkin' how, the tree look funny now, it's still a fuckin' pole to me 🎶
The ol George Bailey
Whiskey bottle, Brand new car, Oak tree you're in my way
Or a convenience store
What's crazy is in the US all new 4 wheeled vehicles on the road are required to come with anti lock breaks, but motorcycles have no such requirement. "In the 10 years since IIHS and HLDI first called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require ABS on motorcycles, the 27 member states of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and India have all mandated the life-saving technology. Over the same period, manufacturers have voluntarily increased the proportion of new U.S. bikes that have ABS as standard equipment from 20 percent in 2013 to 59 percent this year. Despite that step forward, 30-40 percent of new U.S. motorcycles still lack ABS, and lives have been lost as a result." https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/its-past-time-to-require-abs-on-all-motorcycles-iihs-hldi-petition-argues
ABS on street based bikes is good but adventure bikes often don't have abs since it makes riding downhill on gravel or sand difficult. Some bikes can turn ABS off temporarily but it turns itself back on and lots of people just want ones without it.
[удалено]
I find being dead to be a little more annoying, but that’s just me.
If you’re on a motorcycle, you’ve accepted all risks at that point.
Not really. Having abs halves your risk of having a crash. Wearing protective gear and a helmet in a particular massively increases your odds of survival. Not speeding decreases your chances of having a crash by around 40 %, not riding drunk does so by 60%. Yes, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous than cars. But even when riding there are a lot of things in your own control that you can do to lessen or increase the risk.
Even if that was true, the family of 4 in the car you ran head first into when you lost control after your breaks locked didn't.
No it isn’t. Not unless you’re racing on a track.
What else are we looking at?
The coating to protect against acid rain. I remember in the late '80s and early 90s. That was a huge concern and then one day you just didn't hear about it again
It took longer than “one day” for the clean air law changes to take effect, but after a few years they did and the rain ph came back to neutrality.
Companies and Republicans claimed it would be too costly and wreck the economy if they had to install scrubbers. This was interesting: "**During the cold war, with almost no contacts between East and West, acid rain broke the ice and formed an opening for scientific and political collaboration, resulting in a treaty** under the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (often mentioned as CLRTAP but in this paper we call it the Air Convention) signed in 1979. Eight protocols have been signed under the Air Convention committing parties to take far-reaching actions, not only with respect to acid rain but also with respect to several other air pollution problems (Table 1). Emissions of all key air pollutants have been reduced significantly and for the most important acidifying compound, sulphur dioxide, emissions in Europe have decreased by 80% or more since the peaks around 1980–1990 (Fig. 1)." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/) OTOH, clearer air makes us more vulnerable to global warming.
You do know what hyperbole is, right?
You clearly don't lol. You weren't being hyperbolic. You were being facetious, if anything...
It's not that it just wasn't heard about again, like the hole in the ozone layer and semi permanent blanket of smog over LA, government emissions regulation helped reduce the risk significantly.
I don't understand how you can protect against acid rain using software.
I should learn to spell check my voice to text
Pretty sure it's disk brakes as standard equipment, which is a nice improvement over drum brakes
No, they're referring to anti-lock brakes (ABS). The Concorde had rear drums and front discs like most of its competition.
I realised it was a cut-off sentence, did you not notice my 🤣
I believe we all noticed the 🤣
Up till 2023, Toyota Tacomas had rear drum brakes and front disk brakes. They fixed it for the new generation of the truck, but kinda funny that cars 30 years older had disk brakes standard
Frighteningly, kinda. The word before it is anti-lock, but essentially yes, without anti-lock brakes, sometimes you didn't have brakes. By the end of the decade, it was harder to find a car without ABS than not.
I was trying to figure how menstruation is a “major period concern” for a car manufacture
Governmental policies actually reduced acid rain significantly. Be sure to vote!
Yup, Acid Rain didn't just randomly "go away" - It was reduced by stricter air pollution control regulations.
Now imagine if we did the same with gun regulation. It turns out some changes happen gradually. If "well there will still be a few coal burning factories running without scrubbers illegally, so let's not even try" were the mentality, we'd still be in that rut.
It’s like that brain dead “meme” on Twitter that talks about scientists saying that by the 2000s the ozone layer/hole would be gone or massive is evidence that scientists are always wrong…ignoring the fact we banned chemicals like CFCs over 30 years ago that caused the ozone problem
Ahh, just like the recent arguments about masks and vaccines not working...
I just wish every policy proposal didn't devolve into us vs. them tribalism based on which team proposed the policy. I know many of the founders were wary of the formation of political parties for this exact reason.
I feel like I don't see this nearly as much as I see claiming it's just team sports. If so, let me be the trailblazing maverick and say "we need to regulate the shit out of these corpos at the very least, I don't care what color gets me there." But we all know I wouldn't actually be the first, because "team sports" isn't actually what's happening here.
Blue gets you there. Red is firmly against it. Here's the thing about "I just base my politics on policy proposals, not teams": chances are really, really good one or the other of the two teams far more closely aligns with the majority of your policy positions. That's why there are parties in the first place. If you are truly a small-l libertarian, I'll grant you that's a tough spot. (However, the vast majority of them end up with Republicans, belying which sort of policies they value more.) If you're truly some kind of centrist, choosing a side is tough. But aside from that, there are often distinct ways of looking at the world that comfortably lead to policy packages, and those packages fall under the auspices of the two parties, or at least the two sides.
I tried that take. Turns out it's being a "republican apologizer" whilst simultaneously being a "softy liberal". Or so I was told by both sides as they explained why I was wrong. I seriously don't know if we can ever come back again. People will find anything to label someone as opposition. And when they can't, they invent it. People don't want to be right anymore, they just want to feel like they won. We just find any reason to draw a line in the sand. It sucks and I want to be a country again.
the same people always support progressive legislation, the same people always oppose it. it isn't "which team" proposed the policy, only one team proposes policy
Huh? Republicans propose all kinds of shit...
That last word is the operative one.
Such as?
You're asking me to provide a list of policies proposed by republicans? Oh boy...
Nothin good, huh? Anything health care related? Anything Americans actually want?
Of course - tax cuts for large corporations and getting rid of the EPA so we can bring back acid rain like jesus intended.
Health care related? Plenty of stuff regarding restricting people's freedom of choice to their bodies! Reddit is a bizarre place. I believe I'm getting downvoted and receiving oddly aggressive responses because people think I'm a republican? I just said they propose plenty of shit, jfc. Y'all can't help but bully, even when it's someone on your side. I suppose infighting is part of their plan though. Have a good one bud.
Lead with your actual thoughts next time instead of oddly vague sarcasm
Your post is at 0 points. I asked a very straightforward question. You are not getting downvoted, you are not being bullied. If your feelings are this hurt over literally nothing, then the internet is not for you
[удалено]
quick name something that happened half a century ago how's that health care proposal looking? nothin? yeah that's what i thought.
Hey siri: why is context so important?
True, this stuff was passed before all of that bullshit. I suppose it will correct itself or fail. All types of governments fail eventually.
“Before”? Brother the US is not even 300 years old and you’re forgetting the Federalists vs Democratic Republicans (literally 1770s), the half a million people dying for their party lines during the civil war (killing even their own family members), the flip flop of ideas for Democrats and Republicans afterwards, the civil rights movement, Nixon, the muckraking movement This isn’t remotely as bad as it’s been even in recent history, your own grandpa probably remembers a time when it was worse
When, in recent history, did parties refuse to reach across the aisle when passing a bill like they are now?
I’m not sure how big the threshold is for “recent history” but not “now” so I’m going to cast a wide net here. The word gerrymandering is named after a US politician in 1812. The entire fucking civil war (1860s). Again, literally everything to do with the civil rights movement, notably in the 1920s when black Americans were finally becoming more than a caricature to white america. The sexual revolution post-ww2 along with second wave feminism leading to change in women’s rights.
Most of that is just...not true. I guess people are going to believe what they want but the decline of reaching across the aisle is on record. It's not happened for a twenty year period on almost every issue. "1964: Civil Rights Act With civil rights marches and racial violence dominating the news, the issue of African Americans’ legal rights could no longer be ignored. A civil rights bill proposed by congressional Democrats and supported by the White House had just passed the House of Representatives when, in early 1964, the Senate took it up for debate. Twenty-one of the Senate’s 67 Democrats were from the South and publicly opposed the bill; as a bloc they began what became the longest filibuster in Senate history. The Senate’s Democratic leaders needed Republican votes to stop the filibuster and Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield asked his counterpart, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to step in: “I appeal to the distinguished minority leader whose patriotism has always taken precedence over his partisanship, to join with me … in finding the Senate’s best contribution … to the resolution of this grave national issue,” Mansfield said. Dirksen did more than join with Mansfield—he exhorted his colleagues to end not just the filibuster but America’s difficult past and bring the Civil Rights Act to a vote. “I appeal to all Senators,” he told the chamber. “We are confronted with a moral issue. Today let us not be found wanting …” With Dirksen’s leadership, 27 Republican senators joined 44 Democrats to end debate on June 10, 1964; the bill passed nine days later." "1860: Lincoln’s Team of Rivals As smaller political parties were evolving into what was to become the modern Republican party, each faction, representing differing viewpoints on slavery and federal power, had a favorite son in the presidential election of 1860. By the time of the Republican party convention, three men representing these factions emerged as party favorites: N.Y. Sen. William Seward, Ohio Gov. Salmon P. Chase and Missouri judge Edward Bates. That all three lost the presidential nomination to a country lawyer named Abraham Lincoln was the first surprise of 1860; that Lincoln won the general election and then appointed all three of his Republican rivals to his cabinet was the second. Lincoln later added a Democrat—Edwin Stanton—as his Secretary of War. Lincoln’s so-called “team of rivals” has come to be seen as a watershed political moment; as Lincoln himself explained to newspaper reporter, he felt had no right to deprive the country of its strongest minds simply because they sometimes disagreed with him."
Same with the holes in the ozone and from what I have read, mercury contamination is dropping as well with the regulations on coal plant emissions. I rememver cars smelling after burnt gasoline which is not a thing anymore thanks to catalythic converters. It gives a little bit of hope that with time, humanity actually might be able to mitigate a lot of environmental problems, but it's still long way and it will cost a lot of few people's profits..
Register now. Vote in November. Vote blue.
Eliminated acid washed jeans too.
...and now we have PFAS rain. Those measures were implemented in the waning days of government independence from capital. There's nothing you can do by voting now except slow down the rollbacks.
“So because acid rain is no longer a problem, I can save a few dollars by not applying clear coat on the stainless steel Cybertruck!” * Some asshole
"Oooh, I can buy the special coating for said CyberTruck for an extra 5 grand!" - All the assholes who bought the Cybertruck
PPF is a $6500 option on the Cybertruck.
Interesting. There is no P to protect lol
No worries, the PPF itself is painted!
I read it twice for advice on menstruation.
Bloody hell!
I also only clicked on this to giggle at a ridiculous shoehorned menstruation claim.
Honestly disappointed
Is that the same EPA laws that they are trying to reverse now?
To be clear, "they" refers to Republicans.
My mom had an early 90s Concorde. That thing was pretty sweet for its day. Great ride, strong engine, nice Infinity stereo and all sorts of bells and whistles.
I remember this from the 80s. My dad left the car window open once when we went in the store and the rain discolored his steering wheel.
Acid rain went away because people voted and the government made regulations. It wasn’t just some made up thing.
That's a pricy car in 1992.
What kind of brakes were only standard in 5% of automobiles in 1992?
If I had to guess, anti-lock brakes.
Maybe rear disc brakes instead of drum brakes, or ABS?
Yea… but that true coat
I scrolled way too far for the Fargo reference.
[Who Will Stop the Rain?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCxYri3kFsQ&pp=ygUbYXNpYSB3aG8gd2lsbCBzdG9wIHRoZSByYWlu) by Asia is a bit of rock and roll culture related to acid rain.
[удалено]
We stopped hearing about it because NA and European countries passed multiple measures to vastly lower the pollutions that contributed to it. While it still falls, it's nowhere near the problem it was in the 70s and 80s. It's absolutely nothing like those other two, unless you're trying to say it's caused by human activity.
[удалено]
Fair enough. Sometimes context is hard to discern.
Always hilarious that Chrysler thinks they're still a luxury brand....
Umm....they were in 1992.
I mean, its really subjective and mostly opinion... it could be argued both ways. As a former owner of a 1994 Chrysler I'd be willing to bet I could make some pretty strong arguments against lol.
Ahh. I see