site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2429 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 9, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When you asked this question, did you expect the answer to be "no"? I had my own suspicions, but I spent about 20 seconds googling.

A looming crisis is brewing in China, as hundreds of thousands of unsold, polluting gas-powered vehicles may be rendered unsellable due to incoming emissions rules. The new Chinese emissions rules were announced all the way back in 2016 and are set to go into effect in July.

China plans to phase out conventional gas-burning cars by 2035. This second one is older, so I don't know if they pulled a California since it was published. Apparently individual Chinese provinces are moving faster to ban ICE. They're also subsidized by the state.

In America learning to drive a car is a rather formative experience, and they're crucial for mobility in rural areas. How should we expect rednecks (and those sympathetic towards them!) to react when Washington D.C. or California start fucking with them, their availability, the specs they're allowed to have?

@SubstantialFrivolity

For the record, I strongly oppose a ban on ICE vehicles. Let the market decide if they stay or go. An EV happens to make sense for my wife and me, but I will never ever be ok with mandates.

But since you know the mandates exist, why are you baffled people opposed the project? Shouldn't it make perfect sense to you?

Pollution restrictions are not per se a ban on gas cars. If restricting exactly how many noxious fumes cars may emit counts as "fucking with the specs" then that war was lost in the 70s with the clean air act. Nevertheless, gas cars have prospered since the seventies. I don't think it's reasonable to expect zero restrictions on what are textbook externalities, no matter how great the private benefits of cars are.

The ICE-only phaseout is more like what I was thinking of, so thanks for the link. Although I personally like hybrids a lot, I can understand people being upset about it.

Hybrids are also a straightforwardly superior technology to pure-play ICE for pretty much every use case except long-haul freeway driving. They're not backyard-maintainable, but nor are modern ICEs. (And the backyard-maintainable ICEs of the late C20 were so polluting that in a world where alternatives exist, they really shouldn't be allowed in cities or suburbs).

I still miss those illegal German diesel engines that cheated the emissions tests though. Performance competitive with petrol, and you could get from London to well past Edinburgh on one tank of diesel.

They're not backyard-maintainable, but nor are modern ICEs.

My sense is that the Toyota Dynamic Force engines are still mostly backyard-maintainable (there will always be a question of level of effort as well as some specific sub-systems), and they're pretty darn efficient. Seems they got there with just good old fashioned design optimization and only a couple additional computer-controlled subsystems.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats