Meanwhile in the US, if a majority party does not like the voting districts, they just redraw them, and if they don't like the voters, they disenfranchise them. Truly great high-IQ work.

Once EV manufacturing is decarbonised (which is I assume ongoing) this will be moot too.

So you have to 1) remember that and 2) calculate how much will come out. You will be surprised to hear not everybody does.

> the "public health threat" is literally a prohibition scare-the-rubes meme.

I'm not from the US, we never had prohibition. We however had people poisoned (blind or dead) by methanol - I'm originally from the countryside and making and drinking fruit spirits is very common here.

Also more people dead from methanol sold as alcohol on industrial scale - like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Czech_Republic_methanol_p... - of course this happened because the alcohol taxes are high, but OTOH if they weren't high, people would drink even more, and that reverberates through the health system and society as a whole.

Sure, which is why the laws in the US are not approved by randomly selected lawmakers. In that way it's irrelevant what some random jury decides, when the executive branch, the lawmakers and top judges are owned by the ruling class.

> We have those in Bangladesh. As often as not, such laws just become vehicles for manipulating elections

Sorry about that, but that's not a rule that applies everywhere, far from that. And of course the elections in the US are already heavily manipulated even without that.

The way this is solved in our country is that you can legally make your own alcohol, but only at a state-approved distillery, where the personnel knows how to handle this.

Why should everyone care about founders of a different country that's not even working particularly well at this time.

> while substantive decisions about guilt or liability are made by randomly selected juries

A system gamed as easily as any other one.

> Meanwhile other countries trust random people at companies

They don't trust them to do the right thing, which is why there is a law telling them what to do. The alternative is to ban privately-owned social networks (either all of them or at least those that don't follow the laws).

It might not be the most economical way to manage that. Often owning a car is seen as a status symbol, and economically it would be more rational not owning one. But I doubt many people do a really thorough honest calculation - they don't have to, they can afford a car. In that way, a car loan is helping them to do the, strictly economically speaking, wrong thing.

> But it's a large capital expenditure upfront.

Yes, which is why in many countries the private owners are not the biggets market for new cars; instead, companies are, because they have the incentives to buy new. And private owners mostly buy on the secondary market.

for now, but maybe in a few years it will

We wish, but that might not be true. Last year a South Korean government data center burned down and some data was lost forever with it. A few days ago, Ukraine attacked Yandex data centers (3 of them I think?) and some services stopped working, one of them a bank, so people can't get to their money, and it's not certain they will in the future.

Power generation generally seems to be much more redundant in that war. In part because Ukraine connects to the EU power grid and Russia itself has a huge grid. Sure for a small island country the situation would be different.

If you want something bigger (than 4200 mm) then the battery will be so expensive anyway that most of the added tech does not change the price considerably. And also forget about the analogue dashboard because we have a billion mandatory digital assistants anyway (I'm not complaining, anything to save lives).

(and Zdechovsky is not a reliable source at all)

Your point is a good one but there are many people who left even when they couldn't really afford to and are stuck somewhere, but still won't return.