Just to add to this, because it’s fascinating. GPS satellites signals are about as strong as radiation from a light bulb, 20000km away. The signal that arrives on earth is 20db weaker than the noise floor, so background noise is a lot stronger than the signal is.

The way it works is that the background noise is random and the signal is repeated many times a second, so you can split the signal and add it together. The random background noise averages out and you’re left with a strong signal. But due to this, it’s enough to have a very weak signal that adds non random noise on the correct frequency for it to just break.

And actually what I desribed above is just the first layer of a GPS signal, it gets a lot more complicated with signals within signals, it’s pretty crazy how well it works. this is an amazing write uo on how the signal actually works, in case anyone is interested

In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are “gone” before the cars drive for the first time

Those are not the same things… Glass is better for the environment, for one it doesn’t break down into microplastics which get everywhere. And glass can be recycled indefinitely (minus some loss due to impurities) whereas plastic can be recycled up 0-1 times usually.

Plus the whole “it’s up to consumers to solve this” is just corporate propaganda to absolve themselves of any responsibility, all the while not offering any alternatives that a consumer could pick from. Like literally, they paid for marketing campaigns to convince the public that it was our fault.

I think it’s for many different reasons, but a bit the same as everywhere. Some are protest votes due to a distrust in government in general, then 35-45 is the age most get kids and in contrast to their parents generation they live in apartments, not single family homes, as houses aren’t affordable. Then there’s the general widening of the wealth gap and the populists pretending they have a solution and blaming it on immigration (while themselves being a big reason for the problem in the first place…), while left parties often get tricked into reacting to right rhetoric, letting the right dictate the discussion. Old people are less affected by the wealth gap, young people don’t have kids so they don’t notice yet. And in it’s also a question of mobilizing ones base, the right parties get a ton of money for ads and so on, they are good at stirring up fears of existential threats(which is ironic given the real existential threat of climate change), while a lot of people are disillusioned, so middle aged left voters are less likely to actually go vote whereas more right voters do. Of course <30 voters worry more about climate change and are more motivated to go vote, since they’ll be the most affected by its effects.

I’m sure there’s many more reasons but these are the first ones I can think of off the top of my head.

If you look at elections in europe, it’s pretty consistently the 35-45 year old demographic that votes right the most. Every age group votes right and it’s not like it’s only boomers, with the exception of young voters <30 (and women) which do vote significantly more left

E. G. Netherlands https://www.statista.com/chart/8178/pvv-largest-party-but-not-among-youth/

Enough for what? Switzerland doesn’t really have coalitions, that’s more Germany. At most there’s “coalitions” on single issue votes. And there’s 7 presidents, proportional to parties, so no such thing as a ruling party or coalition. That said, the FDP votes identical with the SVP in nearly everything already, especially economic issues, so much so that’d it’d be hard to distinguish them based on votes, minus the blatant populism.