TheRealKuni

Believe it or not the headline says “sunCREAMS” but I also read it as “sunscream” and thought maybe it was a knockoff Decepticon.

Hydrogen infrastructure can be built out similarly to petrol infrastructure, whereas EV infrastructure requires a robust power grid. That is, it would be easier to set up hydrogen refueling in some of the places Toyota operates than EV charging.

The good news is, Toyota isn’t doing hydrogen combustion but rather power generation. So they’re still relying on EV motors, just powered by hydrogen fuel cells rather than by batteries. In fact, they can be called FCEVs (fuel cell electric vehicles) as opposed to BEVs (battery electric vehicles).

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with multiple solutions. BEV makes far more sense for me as a consumer than a hydrogen vehicle would, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a place for hydrogen.

The sector where I think FCEVs could be most useful (in the short term anyway) is trucking. Refueling at speeds similar to petrol or diesel, but the torque advantages of electric motors. And building out infrastructure for trucking is an easier proposition than for everyone driving a car. Refueling of long-haul trucks is done already largely separate from the average car.

And that he didn’t tell this to graduating diplomats, whom would see through this peaceful transition

In this sentence, “who/whom” is acting as the subject of the clause “who/whom would see through this peaceful transition” and thus should be in the nominative case “who.”

Easiest way to know when to use “whom” is to replace the word with “he/him” and follow the “m.” If “he” makes more sense, use “who.” If “him” makes more sense, use “whom.”

And if you’re not sure, just use “who.” It’ll stand out a lot less if it’s wrong, since “whom” is gradually falling out of use.

given that the public now has no way to remove leadership that's running a war this badly.

What? David is holding his own against Goliath, but that’s “running a war this badly”?

You don't get to have it both ways. Either slurs can shift and be used despite it causing harm, or they can't. Someone's gonna have to be brave and start that semantic shift, it doesn't just spontaneously happen.

If one dumbass decides they think a word should have a different meaning and starts using it, nothing changes.

If an entire subculture shifts their use of a slang term over time, the meaning of that slang term changes. Over time.

Language is not fixed. It evolves. But it also isn’t prescribed (except in cases including but not limited to jargon or technical definitions).

This isn’t a difficult concept.

Hank Green has helped me see the light. Whales are fish! Whales are fish!!!

Okay, why don't you start using the n-word to mean the colour black and see how many friends that gets you sweetie! 😊💜

Because that’s not really how language and culture work. I don’t get to decide how a word is used any more than you do.

What the fuck?

That’s not really how language and culture work. Some words are going to evolve and change whether you think they’re allowed to or not.

A sleeper is something else though, sort of the opposite of a ricer. A sleeper Honda Civic would look largely unmodded but be a monster under the hood. A ricer Honda Civic is gonna have a wing and loud, giant exhaust and other very obvious modifications.

Personally I love a heavily modified Japanese car, and in my experience of car culture, “ricer” has largely been reclaimed by the people who drive them.

I would think it's extremely unusual if he used a more modern tone and vocabulary.

I don’t know that I’d find that unusual, either, honestly. Judging by the bullet memes, he was clearly very “online.”

People are complicated. It’s convenient and very tempting to put everyone into neat boxes, but individuals often don’t fit into those boxes. Not completely.

In a world where very few things are binary and most things are spectrums, nuance is generally a good policy.