This particular scandal was worse than you think. It wasn't just that she was suspected of sleeping with her bodyguard, but it's that she was abusing her position to make young female staffers communicate work stuff through her father or through her husband (neither of whom were government employees) so that they could sexually harass them. It's fucked up.
If it were just shitting where she ate, it wouldn't even register in this administration. This was worse.
It’s cheaper to pay cash than use insurance.
Yes, for most people, in most years. But the cost of health care tends to be very, very unevenly distributed. A person might see medical bills of less than $1000 per year for 20 years and then get a single $1,000,000 year. So at that point, it's an annualized cost of $50,000 per year, even if most years it's about $1,000. Some estimates are that 10-30% of all medical spending in the US is in the last year of life.
Many believe that because of this distribution, health insurance should primarily be a catastrophic care model where most people pay a premium that doesn't cover anything for the first few thousand, then covers a percentage of the cost up to the out of pocket maximum of like $15,000 or so for a family, but does cover everything after that. For a typical household, being able to predict annual healthcare expenses for the entire year is very useful.
And personally, I'm pretty sympathetic to this catastrophic care model as a short term transition to an all payer model that looks like Switzerland's system (private insurance, private providers, mandatory coverage, strict price controls, and subsidies for anyone who can't afford the normal premiums).
The thing is, when someone is bad at many different parts of their job, it's easier to build a coalition of people who each want him removed, for their own reasons.
To be clear, women's work before World War II was more than just the dishes. If you look at the guidebooks published for housewives back then, you'll see that they were expected to have quite a few skills that most households now generally outsourc to external businesses:
The economic shifts that come from women leaving the home for the paid workforce are all over, and some of them are pretty pronounced. But it's important to remember that women worked hard before they ever got paid for it. Life was toil.
There have been examples of postponements of elections for emergencies (most notably, the mayoral primaries in New York scheduled on September 11, 2001 had to be postponed for 14 days later), I'm not aware of any instance of an actual changing of swear-in dates being postponed.
Fuckery can still happen, but I'm more worried about threats and governmental terrorism that suppresses votes on the election day that moves forward as scheduled rather than actually moving the election schedule itself.
Permanently Deleted
Are you talking about battery storage itself being about $126/MWhr? Yeah, that incorporated into the solar+battery LCOE, because solar itself is $31, battery is $126, and the weighted average of how much energy is expected to come directly out of the solar panels onto the grid (at $31) and how much is expected to be stored for later ($31 plus $126) averages out to $53, presumably because most demand matches the daytime solar curve and doesn't need to be stored for later.
Permanently Deleted
Which graph? I linked to a PDF with a ton of graphs.
Permanently Deleted
It's because fuel is such an insignificant percentage of the overall cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear power. Increasing the complexity of the reactor in order to make the fuel use more efficient is basically a nonstarter, economically.
Permanently Deleted
Oh, I agree.
I was a big, big nuclear proponent 20 years ago. But seeing how Vogtle and VC Summer played out, and how that "cheaper" and more "scalable" AP1000 design put Westinghouse into bankruptcy, basically turned me off from the economics of nuclear power.
Oh, and because of how utility generation is paid for, ratepayers in Georgia will be paying for the Vogtle construction and cost overruns in their electric bills for the next 75 years, as the nuclear plant is shielded from competition by price regulators (state Public Utilities Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), so even if newer and better technology comes online, customers in 2080 will still be paying for 2020 technology.
The technology is still neat but I don't believe there's an economic future for civilian nuclear power generation. Not anymore.
Permanently Deleted
Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just approved a new construction of a reactor for the first time in 10 years, to the Bill Gates backed Terra Power. Cool, except it's projected to cost $4 billion and the government is expected to cover half the cost, to build a reactor with 345 MW of capacity.
In contrast, solar panels cost about $1 million per MW, so an equivalent amount of peak capacity from solar would cost about $345 million, or about 1/12 the price. Solar won't run all day, but the nuclear plants will also continue to cost money to run after construction is complete.
Looking at the different LCOE estimates of each type of power generation shows that advanced nuclear is around $80/MWhr and solar+battery for all day demand tracking is about $53/MWhr.
Basically nuclear is only economically viable with government support at this point, and we should be asking whether we'd rather have the government support towards other forms of energy.
Permanently Deleted
Resistance takes many forms.
Completely lawful resistance can include social pressure or ostracism, economic influence (boycotts, refusal to serve as customer, etc.), messaging/speech/persuasion, protests, strikes, etc. Keeping the cameras rolling, telling them how you feel about them being in your neighborhood, warning your neighbors about them.
Civil disobedience goes up the ladder a bit, and can cause disruption and might be nonviolent, but might at times actually be illegal. Generally speaking, this type of resistance is designed to clog up the system without being violent, and doesn't even require anonymity or evasion from authorities.
Sometimes simply playing dumb can slow things down without actually committing a crime of putting yourself at much risk. Apply for a job at ICE with 1000 of your closest friends so they waste resources on your application. Forget to put in their order when you're their waiter, or give them the shitty hotel room when they check in at your hotel, and program their keys incorrectly. Give them the wrong bay/spot when they're renting a car from you. Call in tips for everything you see and flood their lines with bad information.
Most people jump from that category to outright violent resistance, but there are other tactics available, too. Sabotage, property crimes, plain old financial crimes, fraud, impersonation, hacking or denial of service, even things like theft, embezzlement. Locking a fence with a bicycle lock, blocking a driveway with a van, flooding a field with mud, impersonating their boss and giving them fake orders, sending them on a goose chase with a bad tip, etc.
If you shoot an ICE agent you might turn them into a hero. Steal their badge or ID when they're drinking at the bar, though, and you might actually hurt them in ways that they won't feel like a martyr, and will actually sap resources from their management.
Everyone is in a different situation, with different capabilities. Every war has plenty of roles, many of them nonviolent. There's probably something you can do today to contribute to the cause, from your unique position.
Maybe you're not dreaming big enough on what makes ideal conditions. The fraudulent Nikola company managed to film a semi "driving" a few km without a powertrain, by just letting it roll downhill. I bet there's a place that has a high enough altitude and smooth enough roads for a long downhill descent where 600km on a 300km battery is possible.
Makes me wonder about the wheel's rotational inertia, too. In theory, a hubless wheel could be lower mass overall without the need for a center axle/hub and spokes connecting the outside to the center. But that's all weight saved in the center of the wheel with lower effect on overall rotational inertia. Visually, the picture that makes the thumbnail in this post shows that the brake disc has to be further from the center of the wheel, which I imagine adds a lot more weight (more material necessary for the overall brake disc being a larger circle) and a lot more rotational inertia (further from the center).
Maybe the whole design itself can save weight in certain places that make up for the weight added in other places. But I just have a ton of questions, and am overall pretty skeptical of the long term potential of this design.
Looks cool, though, I guess.
The hubless wheel is on their current models. It's basically their signature differentiator.
There's reason to be skeptical of the company and its claims as a whole, but at least that particular feature has shipped and has been test driven by reviewers:
https://thepack.news/11000-km-in-2-months-marc-travels-rides-the-verge-ts-across-europe/
My "We're totally different from Enron" accounting report has a lot of investors asking questions answered by the report.
Or maybe use excess power to electrolyze water for fuel cell use later?
Hydrogen storage presents a lot of challenges, because it tends to leak at normal temperatures found on Earth. So we either tolerate a lot of loss during storage, or we use lots of energy chilling it to a temperature where it won't easily escape.
Permanently Deleted
Yeah, seems like someone could pass the test by only knowing pokemon, which isn't what we'd want in testing people on their drug knowledge.
Permanently Deleted
Actually, I suppose a name being used for a drug or a Pokémon precludes it from being used for the other, so it is a very shared issue, lol.
Theoretically, unrelated trademarks can have the exact same name in different fields, owned by completely different owners, but that generally only applies to trademarks that are regular words that are already in use: Apple Computer versus Apple Music (which the Beatles owned and ended up selling to Apple Computer), Monster Energy Drink versus Monster Cable versus Monster Jobs, Dove soap versus Dove chocolate, etc.
Still, the law looks to likelihood of customer confusion, and maybe it would be too confusing to have a Pokemon named Ozempic.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S. to face criminal charges : NPR
How does that change the current law, though?
I'd be in favor of a rule that explains that organizing into associations doesn't change the rights of the individuals who form the association, but also that the association would only have rights that relate to the actual purpose of forming the association in the first place (whether it's a corporation, LLC, partnership, joint venture, other unincorporated associations).
So a church gets religious freedom. But a sandwich shop does not. A newspaper gets freedom of speech and may exercise editorial discretion on what goes on its pages. A telephone company does not, and cannot discriminate against the viewpoints expressed over its phone lines.
There are trickier issues: can a government ban halal slaughter, and would a Muslim-owned butcher shop be entitled to a religious exemption (if, assuming, individuals were granted that exemption)? I'd argue you have to look to the nature of the business or organization to determine whether that particular right applies to that organization, so the butcher shop can invoke the religion of the human butcher, and possibly even the human customers who want to buy halal meat.
But the framework makes sense to me, and is closely related to the principle of organizational standing, where something like a nonprofit association of apple growers can sue on behalf of apple grower rights, despite not being an organization that actually directly grows apples. That's how corporate rights should work: look to the reason for incorporating and the nature of the organization, and how it relates to the nature of the right at issue.