It's the US fault actually, they're nothing but body bags as Soros explained.
And they are found everywhere, sensible left-wing people who see these EU ghouls are destroying us and the extreme-right also.
It's an idiotic stance to say when fascists say something it must automatically be not true.

Maybe so, but why is it spreading BS about the tethered caps then? The same way anti-EU memes from tech bros?

I think littering and contributing more plastic waste into the environment can definitely be considered part of a person's carbon footprint. More indirectly than burning gasoline, but it reduces recycling and requires more manufacturing and natural resources than if the plastic wasn't wasted/littered.

In any case, it's a pretty big stretch to label this content as "Anti-EU", at worst they used poor word choice to make their point.

If they had said "to protect the environment" instead of "to reduce my carbon footprint" it's the exact same comic. Tesla/capitalism is the butt of the joke here

Considering littering part of someones carbon footprint is not entirely wrong but it is quite a stretch. The aim really is the littering, not the carbon footprint caused by the littering, at least that's what the legislator communicated as goal.

It is not so much that the comic is "anti-EU" indeed, it is that it uses an anti-EU narrative. The tethered caps have been parts of a number of clearly anti-EU memes, usually from the right, some of them from the tech-bros.

No it would not be exactly the same comic. There is a reason they used "carbon footprint". It strengthened the message of hypocrisy. I do not claim that Tesla/capitalism isn't the butt of the joke here. If they had written "to protect the environment" I probably would have no issue with the comic. Then the tethered caps would not be presented in a way that people who don't know about it would be mislead about the intention behind the tethered caps.

The attached cap is also really convenient. Never have to worry about dropping, losing, or dirtying the cap

So you think the US is at fault for Russia deciding to invade Ukraine?

And you feel the EU is destroying an unspecified "us"?

Who do you blame for the US attacking Iran? What about Israel's genocide on Palestinians?

Maybe I'm trying to make sense of the nonsensical, but I can't say I'm following the reasoning of your worldview

Because ignorance? I guess when I weigh these two in my head, ignorance wins but idk

The in-between was disregarded over a nitpick for it not being "perfectly" carbon neutral.

That person would complain because the carbon footprint of my fart is too big.

What downside? I really do not understand what you are talking about. Your only critique is that I said "no carbon footprint" instead of "a much smaller comparatively insignificant carbon footprint", which in my opinion is just dishonest nitpicking.

I don't know, maybe all attention is good attention.

I'm curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh.

Compressed air is one of the most expensive ways of storing energy.

Why are you responding in such a condescending tone?  Was my reply in any way as rude?  Do you hold all of your internet conversations by talking down to your fellow contributors? You don’t know who we are; you don’t have any right to reply like that. Grow up. Keep your “gold stars” and “walk step by step for you’s” to yourself. If you can’t be civil to strangers, then keep your opinions to yourself.

The compressed gas that “it” uses is compressed with electricity, yes.

…and yes, I realize the gas is not compressed onboard, and that the car doesn’t accomplish this on “its” own.  I’m sorry my simpler phrasing upset you so. If I say “the car uses a DC power supply,” I don’t mean to imply that the car connects “itself” to the charger either. “It” (the car) utilizes a compressed gas source, which was electrically powered.

Sure, that minuscule amount of electricity could be generated by way of fossil fuel power plants, but seeing as how this is a Tesla demo, probably a one-off (assuming Musk is lying about delivering - as he usually is), and Tesla’s “gigafactory” uses a massive solar farm in addition to the local power grid (which may include fossil fuels), it’s nearly a wash. A tiny “carbon footprint,” if any at all. Hell, manufacturing those bottle lids probably generates a larger carbon footprint.

Like [@DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works]\ said, there are plenty of other aspects to this to make fun of.  Arguing that the compressed gas is somehow contributing to its global footprint is stupid. But then, so is arguing with strangers on the internet.

Were you homeschooled?

The energy required to flip a tonne of car is not "miniscule", and that is the amount of energy the compressor needs to put into the gas - plus all the additional energy required because compressor and cryopump are not terribly efficient; and to cap it all, compressed gas jets are also an incredibly inefficient way to lift anything, you get roughly 25% of the compressed energy out as kinetic energy (there is a reason, after all, that SpaceX use them for attitude control, not to actually launch rockets.)

All told, hovering a 1 tonne car (which is generous, given the weight of a Tesla) with gas thrusters would require about 3 kWh of energy input per second - the fact that it gets stored as a gas instead of in a battery does not suddenly make this magic fairy dust with no environmental impact.

Back of the envelope maths and the comments from Tesla's own engineers suggests that demo used 300kWh minimum - more if they used industrially supplied liquid nitrogen. Which is to say one numbnuts trick to impress 8 year olds used as much energy as driving a typical EV 1,500km.

If you think that is not a negative for the environment, well... Why would I expect anything else from a septic?

When it's the prototype of a vehicle feature, scalability is expected.

Of course, this was just for show, as a distraction from other nasty things that were being done behind the curtains, but it's the principle. Don't show it unless you mean it.