Asking someone if they support violence is like asking if they support the coriolis effect. It's a fact of life, not just for humans but every living thing, that we have to deal with sometimes. It's a nonsensical question in most contexts.
Better to ask if someone supports self-defense against violence.
In this case, if they support self-defense against institutional violence.
Sounds like a great way to get the functionality of bike lanes destroyed piecemeal as they're adapted first and foremost to the use of oversized North American emergency vehicles. In the end you get pulled over by an asshole cop on your bike for riding in "the ambulance lane" and you've gotta pay the fine as you can't miss work to dispute it.
No. Stand your ground here. Keep pushing back against the use of nonsensically oversized, outrageously expensive emergency vehicles. Cut down their argument at the ankles by bringing North American emergency response vehicles in line with the standards used by the rest of the world.
Low-weaponization nuclear reactors already exist, industrial-scale grid storage doesn't, but yes the answer to this dispute would be much more clear if it did!
Only one type of reactor, the old uranium design, produces anything weapons grade (Which then requires an additional step to purify). Don't use that reactor design.
Appropriate username, you've got a goddess bod!
My friend they just explained why you have to go so far back. The US government went absolute psycho mode on leftists in the 1930s at the end of the propaganda-of-the-deed era, deporting and executing people willy nilly often on mere suspicion. Right wing assassins get tried by the book because they aren't an existential threat to the system, left wing assassins get their entire social milieu extra-judicially murdered.
Nuclear reactors do not need to use weapons-grade materials or byproducts.
I love subsidizing these jackoffs energy bills in my own power bill /s. 17c/kwh for me, 3c/kwh for Bezos... From the same supplier.
To an extent they're right but probably not in the way they intended to be. Government subsidies help ensure that animal ag can be profitable and incentivized regardless of consumption levels, and the ever-expanding amounts of land required for most animal ag and it's support infrastructure (eg feedstock production, a byproduct of industrial soy oil) literal fuel and are fueled by imperial expansion in a cyclic self-reinforcing fashion. If people stopped eating beef today without also protesting it's existence you'd probably see the animal ag industry continue to run on it's own fumes for years.
The straw thing was a manufactured distraction.
It's way simpler to just farm something other than cows. Plants, maybe.
It's not gatekeeping, none of the opinions shared here by Linus are categorically leftist. The person retweeting him is erroneously putting him into a box, or knows more about his full ideology than he's shared in the tweet.