CoderKat
I write bugs and sometimes features! I’m also @CoderKat@kbin.social.
Great to see such wide sweeping worker solidarity! Tesla can suck it for their refusal to even play ball with workers.
No, we are both dreaming butterflies.
I have an idea. What if we attached a power line directly to the car, so we didn’t need a battery? Of course, it’d only be able to run on specialized lines. To get the most out of those lines, we could chain cars together. And since the specialized hardware doesn’t make sense to own, we could have municipalities own them and charge a fare (or better yet, just make it part of taxes).
You wouldn’t have 13 feats at a time, though. It’d be one at a time and you just get to choose which one. Perhaps could be further limited by only allowing changing once per short or even long rest.
But yeah, it definitely starts stronger than it ends. I was thinking the main ways it could sorta be used is as a jack of all trades, because you could probably have proficiency in any given thing so long as there’s no combat involved.
I get what you’re saying and that’s obviously a concern, but at the same time… doesn’t it have to be reasonably far in the future? We don’t have either the infrastructure or even enough supply of EVs to change this too quickly.
That said, I wish they’d use a gradual approach. Start ramping up taxes on gasoline with the proceeds entirely going to EV infrastructure (and similar for purchasing new gasoline vehicles and licensing existing vehicles). Start small and increase as we get closer to the cutoff date. Start limiting gas station development and create zoning regulations for EV infrastructure (especially charging for apartments, which is a huge gap). Make all the laws ramp up gradually so that it’s always small, incremental changes that are never too difficult to do at a time, but will get us in a better place in 10-15 years.
I am a bit curious where the balance is for how much shit you’ll put up with if it means a lower cost of living (or bigger/cheaper home, anyway). I’m personally of the stance I will pay (or give up) a significant amount of money to live in a good, mostly sane place.
It’s obviously a balancing act. Nobody will give up all their money to have marginally better emotional safety. But where is the line? How much better do things have to be in a different place (or how much worse in your current place) to accept, say, a small apartment that costs a solid third of your income? Or inversely, would you put up with a Gilead situation if you got a sprawling mansion out of it?
