this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
40 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3116 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The topic of gas stoves ignited a heated debate last year when a Biden appointee suggested they could be banned because they posed a risk to human health.

But a ban isn’t in the works — and this week the administration will finalize a scaled-back plan to make new stoves less energy-intensive.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Saving consumers money and having them breathe healthier air is just part of the liberal woke mind virus.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

It's my freedom to suck on tailpipes and stove exhaust. Those damn libruls better not take that right away from me!

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I like coil top stoves, and hate computers in bedded in stoves.

[–] dragonist@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Wow my uh, preview image is rather explicit. I don’t even surf pork on Lemmy, the hell?

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I read an article about stove top gas regulations for nothing.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

I recommend cooking breakfast the morning after.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

Lemmy and the Washington Post tend to interact really badly. It's an ongoing problem.

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

For the folks getting the thumbnail from MILFtrip.com because of "awesome kbin image caching bug". NO, that is not how the DoE is poised. That position is not of modest efficiency. And I highly doubt that would save consumers money on energy bills.

There are zero ways that anything with a MILF is "less energy-intensive".

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Some conservative ghoul, like Clarence Thomas:

This is why the administrative state needs to go.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We're going to get low-flow burners, aren't we?

[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So what you're saying is that your big turd needs a big flush... Fueled by a big stove?

God help us

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

People complaining about low-flow toilets have never used a modern low-flow toilet. Ours has two flush buttons, a big one and a small one. I'm sure you can guess which situation you use each one for. It works quite well. In fact, our old toilet, which was not low flow, used to clog all the time. I think I've had to unclog this one once and we've had it 4 or 5 years now.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It’s really down to what timeframe you’re looking at. I do want to get a new toilet exactly because my “low flow” toilet from 25+ years ago doesn’t flush as well as a modern one . Meanwhile the real water hogs from 50+ years ago could flush a sailboat.

I think water saving toilets went in generations like: 5+ gal—>3.5 gal—>1.6 gal—>1.2 gal

I’m at the 1.6 gallon flush generation, but modern ones about 1.2 gallon or better were where the technology actually improved

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

No... Or, really I have no idea what you're saying. I was just making a joke about low-flow shower heads.