It either violates federal law or it doesn't. May is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Not to mention there are signs for both up to 10% and up to 15%...
If the purpose of the warning is to make sure people get the blend they want then just say that.
Buying E10 fuel (a mixture that contains 10 percent ethanol) from a hose that also supplies E15 fuel (a mixture that contains 15 percent ethanol) must buy at least four gallons to protect customers following behind. Ethanol is hard on engines and less efficient than regular gasoline. E15 can even cause engine failure in smaller or older engines. So if you’re using a blender pump to buy E10 that sells both E15 and E10, the residual amount of E15 left in the hose from the previous customer could cause significant damage to those smaller and older engines—unless you purchase at least 4 gallons.
Why force companies to buy pumps that blend when you can force all liability onto the customer?
Gas stations can get away buying cheap blending pumps and if it breaks someone's older car just shrug and say it must have been the previous customer's fault, we're not liable.
It's probably administrative law associated with DOT regulations. So yes it is a law but not quite in the same way you think of when Congress passes a law. Instead Congress passed a law that said DOT we give this agency the power to regulate these specific things. Go create a working committee and create some regulation. Administrative law is a bit more like civil law than criminal law. In general violation is just fine and they are handled by administrative law courts. Part of what makes them so different is they do not fall under the justice department they are contained within whichever agency has jurisdiction over that area of regulation. They've been affirmed to be functionally the same as federal courts, but can only sanction the guilty party in the exact manner the regulation says. Otherwise when the case is concluded and a party is found guilty is then referred to a federal court for sanctions.
This seems like it's flipped around backwards. The picture says you have to pump more than 4 gallons if you are getting E15, but the explanation seems to explain why someone pumping E10 would want to pump more than 4 gallons.
I bet the real reason is that someone could pump a couple of gallons of cheaper E15, knowing they'd actually receive E10, leaving the next person to actually get that gas.
Customer B buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump.
Customer C buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump and puts it in his chainsaw. If that gallon ruins Customer C's chainsaw, it's legally Customer B's fault? What the fuck?
Forcing B to buy more gas than he might want, to protect the customer after him, because of the customer that came before him, is some horseshit.
In the given example, is the gas station not forcing Customer B to purchase more gas than they may want or need? What if I have a chainsaw with a 1 gallon fuel tank? Now I need to not only buy more gas than I can use, but a container to safely store it in. (It's also illegal to dispense gasoline to/from an unauthorized container!) Now if I use my chainsaw once or twice a year, I also get to dump out that extra gasoline because it's gone bad by the time I need to use it again.
Forget utilitarian ethics altogether. Think of a twisted version of virtue ethics, where the only virtue is power.
Narcissism and sociopathy flows downwards from the top, submission and people-pleasing flows upwards from the bottom.
From the top down, having power makes you virtuous, and exercising power reflects that virtue.
If you are in a position of privilege and power, if you can kill people and take their stuff and get away with it, that marks you as powerful and to-be-feared, and therefore admirable.
If you are some kind of peasant, the opposite applies: you must be a submissive people-pleaser or face severe punishment.
If you’re somewhere inbetween, you do both: oppress those below you, and grovel to those above you. This is virtue on both fronts.
That’s conservative morality in a nutshell.
Christianity endorses this structure wholesale. It pats the peasants on the head and tells them they’ll be rewarded (one day, not today) for being good little people-pleasers, and puts a final boss at the very top of the org chart so that the powerful can do some token groveling-upwards, and so the peasants have someone else to grovel to when nobody’s around. It fits hand-in-glove with everything conservatives love.
Compassion-mercy-and-peace is just marketing spin clipped from the instructions for people-pleasing. Go along to get along, be helpful, don’t rock the boat.
You’ll notice that the core concept of christianity is earning tolerance from the powerful despite complete degradation. You are utterly worthless garbage and deserve to be tortured with fire forever; only via the sacrifice of an actual god can you can be promoted to salvage - though of course this status remains a completely undeserved gift that you should be overwhelmed with gratitude for.
Like a cop deciding not to murder you this time round: you are so blessed, now pick up that can.
That’s a very simple and incorrect view of Christianity. Has the overwhelming majority of Christian history been an example of all the antisocial behavior you described? Yes.
That said, whoever the historical Jesus was, the early followers of his movement were radicals who were opposed to the existing power structure and who said you should love your neighbor as yourself. That if someone strikes you on one cheek you should turn and let them strike the other. That might sound trite now, but that’s because it’s been a very successful idea. And I’m not saying that it’s original to Christianity or whoever Jesus was. But Christianity certainly did a lot to popularize it.
That strain of radical pro-social behavior has been woven all throughout Christian history, but at the same time every type of atrocity and abuse of power has been done in the name of Christianity because it was very quickly adopted and co-opted by the powerful.
Even if we grant that Christianity had a powerful message of love, it was inevitable it wouldn’t be sustainable, because having an incorrect model of the world (“there is an all powerful creator of the world who is personally interested in my day to day life”) will result in counterproductive behavior (“I should follow directions from this guy who says he’s in direct communication with the creator”). But I wrote all this because the idea of loving other people and offering them grace is valuable, it’s one thing we can think of as positive from Christianity, and it can thrive in other ecosystems of ideas besides theism.
“Slaves, obey your masters” is not radically opposing the existing power structure. Nowhere will you find a single instruction to disobey the powerful, or hold them to account.
Like I say, people-pleasing behaviour is definitely in there; Matthew 5 is all about not having any boundaries. But you’ll notice it’s not aimed at powers or principalities, nowhere does it suggest that masters should not beat their slaves or that kings should not retaliate to acts of war - and they’re certainly not for god himself, who absolutely would not forgive anyone for their ancestors’ disobedience without a major blood sacrifice, thus that whole crucifixion thing you might be vaguely aware of (though admittedly it’s pretty niche, hidden deep in the lore somewhere). Those instructions are for the little people, to keep them in their lane.
Which is not, to be extremely clear, to suggest that I’m some kind of randroid fuck who considers altruism to be a weakness; very much the opposite. We could have a much better world if more people would be nicer to each other even when they didn’t have to be.
It’s just that one-way altruism imposed in the context of a rigidly-endorsed social hierarchy just ain’t it. If the poor have to do all the heavy nice-peopling while a bunch of rich untouchable assholes work them to death and torture them for lulz, that would fit more into your whole late-stage-capitalism kind of bullshit - and christianity does not one fucking thing to combat that, while actively propping it up round the edges.
To be clear, I’m an atheist now, and don’t endorse Christianity.
You’re right that Jesus was not calling for violent resistance. Neither was Gandhi or MLK, but that wasn’t an endorsement of those in power.
Christian teachings were radical in their time because they rejected eye for an eye and taught that it wasn’t enough to love someone who loves you, but to love your enemies.
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
Of course then he goes on to talk about people who didn’t help those in need being punished in the afterlife.
As I commented and you’re well aware, Christianity does not result in an overall sustainable world view. And if you want someone who says “we should forcefully overthrow those in power” then no, Jesus didn’t say that. But his ideas (or whoever they really came from) are transformational, and the OP is justified in asking, “hey why is Christianity like this now?” My argument is that it’s because the set of ideas was flawed from the start, rather than that it’s a set of ideas made with the intention to dominate and exploit from the beginning.
And if they are that bad why aren’t anyone forking it
There’s more than one piece of software that is interoperable with the “Threadiverse.” Kbin is known best and also has microblogging features (like Mastodon). There’s a new one too, but I can’t think of the name.
That won’t stop population growth. Remember… the stress of work is gone. Now we all can have big happy families if we want without ANY pressure to ever juggle all those stressful conflicting priorities that take up familial resources. Voluntary contraception would not keep population stable or provide a sustainable ecosystem. I personally would have at least six kids. My wife would want more than that. You are free to be childless if you so choose of course, but statistically proven biological imperative drives us to procreate as-is, it’s literally human nature.
The biggest problem will quite literally be real estate. Unless you can picture a fully urbanized earth where everyone lives in tiny little cubby holes and not much else as being some kind of utopia. Even then the land on earth is finite.
Eh? Why does birth rate drop in countries with top economies versus those that don’t?
Developed countries tend to have a lower fertility rate due to lifestyle choices associated with economic affluence where mortality rates are low, birth control is easily accessible and children often can become an economic drain caused by housing, education cost and other cost involved in bringing up children. Higher education and professional careers often mean that women have children late in life. This can result in a demographic economic paradox.sauce
In order to maintain that high quality of life you have to work a shitload and to get those high paying jobs you have to spend years of your life upskilling and competing for better jobs.
Remove the economic factor and give everyone that astounding QOL and boom… we can breed without worries of providing and we don’t even have to stress about maintaining our QOL. We can all be stay at home parents who just raise our kids if we choose to.
I can’t afford a 4-6+++ bedroom house in the Greater Boston area where my friends and family are without having soul-crushing long commute times. I need a commute because I need to work to put food on the table and pay for rent. Remove the barriers and keep at least even QOL and I will not work, i’ll instead devote my time to doing literally anything else.
We’re talking about a potential utopia where education is available to everyone, not restricted to first world countries. If you bring everyone UP to western world QOL and they are educated, you have to consider it in that aspect.
The immigrant fertility rate thing is because they come from a place with low expected QOL so they don’t think they need the american dream with air conditioning, going out to eat or having nice things and instead go with more kids because they were raised that way. The second generation gets used to say american QOL and wants to have those same nice things the neighbors have- after all they grow up in the american school system meeting other kids right?.. so you need to work to get those high QOL things and suddenly you’re in the situation I have described: needing more professional attainment to keep up the expected QOL and delaying children.
Does that make sense?
Do you have any kind of evidence showing that free of all financial constraints people will not have children in a mid-high COL area?
If we're gonna go to sci Fi then you could solve overpopulation with FTL travel, terraforming, and farming, and we'd just spread out across the galaxy and then galaxies until the universe experiences heat death, I assume that solves it.
Any hard science fiction clings to the fact that taking people off the earth is a luxury only afforded to the most influential and powerful, unless you have critical skills to do a job that they can’t find with space residents.
Imagine what would be needed to ferry a million people off the earth in one year. Then imagine that there are 20-50 billion souls eager to have that luxury off-planet destination life. The math never adds up.
Oh, I just mean in the instance that the entire earth is completely full to comfortable capacity and the government is not totally evil, so when necessary people get shuttled to a different planet for comfortable spread. In my head this wouldnt be up to the individual, but the government would be looking out for and monitoring comfortable living space.
Imagine what it would have taken in 1800 to build an iphone. Now imagine there are hundreds of millions of people wanting that same luxury. The math doesn’t work out.
Not the same scale. If we had the same technology back then it would probably be possible, but the population has exploded since. If we still had 1/8th the people we might get that, but there’s no way we can produce a billion iphones every time an upgrade comes along, let alone 8 billion.
Standards have to drop for real even equity compared to what we are used to in the west. This would be true even if we took everything from the top 10% (which globally seems to include nearly all of the US, even us middle class working peons.)
We’ll all be long dead by the time interstellar travel is here for a handful of individuals, and we may even be dead before we find another planet that could be habitable in a million years time.
You’re realistically targeting ultra-long-term solutions, all of which ignore the fact that we’re trashing this one pristine planet right now by filling it with billions and billions of souls more than it can sustainably support.
Also like. Overpopulation isn’t really an issue. Every country that has modernized and increased education, distribution of goods, and gained some sense of reasonable health care has seen a reduction in births
“do we straight up invade… like we did…” Do you know the mess that actually comes from there? And How much it had enforced extremist behaviour in other countries.
“What US needs to do?” Start by taking care of your own issues like guns, they will inevitably end up in dark market serving cartels and others, it would also stop massive killing happening in your own country at the same time… Priorities to education and healthcare, Stop invading countries (can’t remember last US invasion which was actually useful…), start supporting smart guys instead of bad/extremist guys so they don’t get more powerful (exemple: Masoud instead of Bin Laden in Afghanistan against Russia).
Most niche communities from R*ddit are pretty much dead here unless you are looking forward to being a regular poster yourself. This rather requires sticking to the lemmy.world open feed rather than creating a custom feed with your communities only, if you are looking to scroll a lot instead, of course. Just stick around a bit, see how often what communities and people reach the general feed, elect to block the ones that feel flooding your feed or not to your taste. Maybe give some regularly-posted communities that are previously not in your area of interest some chance before going on a mass block. This place does have a quality and rather genuine people, but in a limited scope.
Mods can and do ban for whatever they don’t like. The “rules” are there as a vague list of nonsense to appear as if there’s a general desire to have order, but at the end of the day- they’ll ban you for saying anything they disagree with.
It’s their community. And it’s there for them. Not you.
I like the idea of universal healthcare. I have zero trust in the US federal government to implement it properly. I think it would be a clusterfuck and make things worse for everyone, especially with Republicans on the warpath doing everything they can to sabotage it.
I can't really understand the tradition of never trusting the government in the US. The government is designed in a way that enables, even requires public oversight, public opinion. If that is not the case, you are not living in a democracy. Many Americans trust private initiatives, charity more than taxes and a working public system. People have no say in what corporations do. If people don't trust the government the attitude should be towards fixing it and enabling trust, not to accept it as is. I am not judging, maybe a little bit but not really. I live in a middle eastern country. We really don't trust the government but we keep working on steering it in the right direction. We are many times smaller than the US but we have minimum income, universal healthcare, unions are the norm, etc.
I would say that the greater the population (in part thanks to medicine) the greater the chances of beneficial mutations occurring and entering the collective gene pool. I see medicine as a safety net. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but that's my professional take on it, as a musician.
Yes. Without the selection pressures to minimize disease, we observe more disease in the population over time. This reduces our fitness for any environment without the artificial benefit of modern medicine.
People don't want to understand because it is difficult and challenges their worldview. Is this an existential risk? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Yes.
Ask Lemmy
Hot