World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Reason: the driver wants to be heard while driving around, or "for the emotional connection" as they put it nicely in the article. Seems like prosthetic lion's roar to me.
I don't think there is a more pathetic display of money. Rolex were on the top of my list with their expensive ugly watches.
I got into a discussion some weeks ago about extremely expensive watches. I think they are stupid and just a "look at me, I'm rich" item. But, apparenty, I know jackshit about it because it's all about the quality of the materials used and "the feel". Seems a 10k watch is extremely better than a normal watch and I'm just too dumb to understand it because I don't know how better it is when a watch uses precious metals in its gears instead of less-precious metals. This, said by a wage slave, by the way.
Suffice to say I realized it was pointless to go on with the discussion and I let it die after their "explanation" on why I was being dumb.
A friend of mine has a few Rolex. Those watches are way less precise than a $5 quartz watch, it's all about showing that you have money. The quality of the materials gives no advantage. They are objectively ugly too with the big round circles, and look like watches for kids who learn how read the time.
I've been told by rich guys that you must wear the strap a bit loose so that it the watch will rotate a bit around your wrist, which forces you to "put it back" while showing to others that you have a Rolex.
I don't remember the specific name but it is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
Exactly my thoughts on it. There are things that are expensive just because they are made so rich people can show off. Is there a point on having diamonds on a watch? No, it doesn't make it better, just more expensive so you can show others how much money you have.
Same thing witd loud cars, they are made just so the owner can be the center of attention for a split second. I kinda feel bad for those idiots thinking they need to show off the money they have. It has to be one hell of an inferiority complex if you need to tell everybody how rich you are every moment of your life.
And, you just don't understand that if you can afford a $40,000 watch with premium materials, it doesn't matter that they don't keep correct time.
I do understand that. But I hate hypocrisy. Just say that you buy it because you want to show how rich you are, don't try to sell me the "superior quality of the gears make them better" bullshit.
Just be honest and say it clear: "I buy it because it's expensive". It's fine. Except it's not, because you are embarrassed to admit you only want to brag about money and instead try to lie others (and yourself) about the reason why you buy it.
I have 3 luxury watches. I'm not rich, it took quite a while to pay off each. That's probably all, those were the only 3 I ever really wanted. I bought them because I like watches, nobody else I know cares about them at all. The ones i picked have interesting movements or history. I didn't get them specifically for their brands. None are Rolex. I would say the biggest difference is not just the materials, it is the quality and tolerances of the machining. The surface finishes.
I like to build and mod watches. I have quite a few made with Seiko movements and aftermarket parts. Some are pretty nice, and I never thought there would be much of a difference between a $400 Seiko and a luxury watch. Until I held my Tudor for the first time. The bracelet has almost no play to it between the links. My Seikos feel sloppy by comparison. The brushed surfaces feel almost soft, they are so smooth. I find myself just rubbing it sometimes. The clasp has little ceramic balls for the detent, and they are very smooth to operate. Wearing it is an excellent tactile experience. Like a fidget toy. It's also the watch I wore during my daughter's birth, and that is primarily what I think of when I wear it.
But yeah, long story short they do feel different. I bet there are a ton of people that only buy them as status symbols, though.
rolexes are actually extremely well made, though. that's why they became so well-valued.
They were the watches people used because they were reliable and bomb-proof. (sometimes literally.)
Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A "bomb-proof piece of jewelry" is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.
/sigh
Because things have always been the way they are today.
The point I'm making that you're either ignoring or that you're not understanding is that Rolex's weren't always so expensive, especially when you consider they're mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist's motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions... and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn't even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it's endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.
Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.
that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don't actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that's okay. but don't sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It's laughably not.
Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here's my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:
The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.
Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let's say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient's heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.
Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that's not the only use case for them.
Some Casio "black" watches have been recovered in some gardens after being buried for years and were still working 🤷♂️
They never kept accurate time. Asian knockoffs work better.
God, that's so pathetic on both parties tbh... Instead of focusing on the long term goals for the company and planet, they rather appeal to the short term goals for their brand and keep making combustion motors just so some vain lame can "sound cool." Although all new vehicles imo should be hybrid by now, including diesel hybrids those would get crazy range from what I've heard.
If they'd use synfuel it wouldn't be that bad. It's way more expensive that regular fuel but the rich fucks can pay that for the bragging rights. But every synfuel proposal gets swarmed by lobbyist trying to water it down to normal fuel with homeopathic amount of synfuel added
It takes more energy to make synfuel than just burning regular gas, and it makes the same amount of C02.
They should brand it sympfuel.
They already replaced the Huracan with a hybrid
Oh that's what's up!
Depends on the way they go, Hydrogen can be used in ICE and it's still clean.
It's wildly inefficient, but what Lambo is efficient? If they can have the best of both worlds, good luck too them.
If they mean lets keep with Fossil fuels, they can go fuck themselves.
Hydrogen would require a tank the size of Trump's ass.
You can sit on your high horse and make EV sportscars, but no one will buy one.
Also, these are bullshit brands. Typical owners keep them 24 months or less and barely drive 2000km a year.
Fine, then supercars die. Big whoop, look super cars are just eye candy that would need to evolve regardless of what people might want. If they don't they die its that simple, if someone's false sense of security needs to amplified by a combustion motor rather than idk not causing an actual fucking extinction of humanity then I rather let those old farts cry in a electric Bugatti that can smoke anything but will sounds all "lame. "
Eh, they won't die, they'll just get taxed probably. Look at Italy for example, they charge for any power over 250hp + displacement. At the end of the day if we're not talking about city pollution cars pale in comparison to the shipping industry and airlines.
Any of you ever seen an MG Cyberster? Yeah me neither
Pretty sure Porsche's EV models have been quite popular
Pretty sure Porsche stopped making them because of poor sales.
They started with one electric model and currently have 3, 5 if you count the Taycan variants.
So... no? Also why go off on something so easy to look up?
This was about sports cars right? Good luck taking your cayenne to a track day, I like dumb cars as much as the next person but it's like trying to enjoy a RSQ8 on a british b-road
Are you saying the Taycan isn't a sports car?
Can you read? I'm talking about the rest of the EV range.
Taycan is mid because it's way too old tech-wise and too big and heavy. If they actually bothered to make an EV Cayman I'd call that an actual sports car.
Taycan is just a hot executive sedan/wagon, I wouldn't really call an E63 a sports car, but my idea is something smaller and lighter, S2K being a perfect example.
But why? It makes no sense to do so given the context of the conversation. I assumed you'd missed the Taycan somehow rather than that you were just arguing in bad faith.
Bruh. The sport variant does 0-60 in 3 seconds. 690 horsepower. Get real.
You were the one who brought up the rest of the EVs?
edit: taycan also weighs more than a w222 while making comparable power so what? i wouldn't call an s class a sports car
a hummer ev does 0-60 in the same amount of time, it's still not a sports car
A hummer EV is not a sedan. Get outta here with your no-true-scotsman nonsense. You realize the Taycan is the safety car for Formula E, right?
Aston were a safety car at some point and they make luxury grand tourers so that doesn't matter. It doesn't take much to make a fast EV, it takes a lot to make it drive like an S2K or a 350Z, which is my point and you'd know that already if you bothered to read my previous comment lmfao.
Your definition is subjective, same as mine, I think Porsche and a lot of other manufacturers are muddying it further for the sake of sales which I have a problem with and I wish they'd stop.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE someones driving 300 miles per year on gas 🤣
Harley Davidson tried to be progressive and be the first large manufacturer to make an electric motorcycle. No one bought them. Who buys a Harley not to make obnoxious noise?
There are a number of EVs that make all sorts of fake engine sounds, both to the interior and exterior. The feature is surprisingly popular.
No it isn't. The Dodge Charger EV was a complete sales flop.
Harley charged Harley prices (15-25k) for bikes that should have cost 5k. Thats why no one bought them.
Emotercycles still have range issues compared to gas bikes, with most topping out at 100 miles, but other modern brands are either selling them at 5k-10k or have implemented tech like battery swapping to make that range viable. Some companies are doing both.
They also outsourced manufacturing. That burned a lot of goodwill with their fans.
Their fans are over 70 years old and dying fast. Harley should just stick to t shirts.
Zero makes cheaper EV bikes, they are some kind of money laundry because they never report sales and are private, so never reveal finances. I have yet to see one in the wild.
BRUBRUBRUBRUB
To be fair they kept their engines insanely ineffective just because the buyers would prefer the sound over performance/consumption
be fair to Lambo- they're not making cars for people who care about any of that. They'e making cars for people who are stupid and modestly rich.
actual rich people drive cars that serve their needs. a very comfortable, maybe sporty, car or SUV or cross over for daily driving, maybe a sports car for fun driving and a real supercar if they want to go to a track day. lambos are for the tacky slobs that wanna be like the Ferrari drivers.
Actual rich people probably have someone drive them everywhere.
It's about the compensation theory. The bigger/louder the car/bike, the bigger the need to compensate for something small they have.
People needing to be heard when they drive with their car/bike are one of the most pathetic kind of drivers. You have to be a special kind of insecure baby to need others to look at you when you drive by.
It's funny to see how it was always about acceleration and top speed until electric cars quietly zoomed past them. Suddenly it's about the feels.