travisoneill1

Nothing worse than journalists who bitch about people who actually do productive things.

Should be 1 - 1/R0, right?

Self driving is an unsolved problem, so I don't see how Waymo's CEO is qualified to say whether or not Tesla's plan is "how it works."

So economically viable if the government subsidizes the construction. I would be happy for my tax money to go to a project that gets 70% of electricity generation off of carbon.

If the economics are impossible, how is it that France currently runs 70% of its grid on nuclear and has electricity costs substantially lower than the EU average?

Nuclear power takes 20-50 years to come online- it’s too late to rely on it and burn fossil fuels in the mean time. That ship sailed long ago.

South Korea builds nuclear plants in less than 5 years on average.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s...

True, but solar doesn't have demand responsiveness either, it has sunlight responsiveness, which is not the same thing.

The rise of variable renewable sources means that there is an increasing need for electricity grid flexibility, the IEA notes. “Robust electricity networks, dispatchable power plants, storage technologies and demand response measures all play vital roles in meeting this,” it says.

Which is why it's not really the cheapest. Fossil fuel and nuclear power don't have these associated costs.

Polonium is actually very stealthy. It's an alpha emitter which is not detectable by most equipment, and it was very nearly not detected even by the UK government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...

I would agree that such a situation would be a problem, but I don't agree that it applies. Trump violated Twitter's TOS plenty before he was president, and Twitter didn't ban him then, so I don't think they were doing this in fear of retribution.

It was a few days after

The same type of right wing nonsense they are going after now. This type of stuff was all over Reddit/FB/Twitter back then. (Remember all the nutty Obama conspiracy theories?) Surely advertisers back then didn't want to appear next to that content anymore than they want to now.

So why didn't they crackdown on this type of content back in the Obama administration when the threat of political blowback also wasn't there?

This would be an issue, but I dispute point 1 because the leaders of the tech industry would very much like to wash their hands of politics and be seen as neutral platforms so they can save money on moderation. Most of these same platforms pretty much had an anything goes unless it's illegal attitude from the time they were started until a few years ago when they started getting a lot of political blowback and blame for "helping Trump" by not moderating more.

1. Democratic party threatens tech industry with heavy regulation because they don't censor to the degree that the Democrats want.

2. Democratic party takes over control of the government.

3. Major companies in the tech industry work together to boot a competitor, and political opponent of the Democratic party off the internet.

At what point is this a legit first amendment issue? The government can't just pressure private companies to do things the government can't do and then hide behind the fact that they are private entities, right?

Yes it is legal with the caveat that it has to be in favor of black, hispanic, or native americans. And that racial discrimination is allowed to extend to much more tangible things like hiring/promotions and university admissions. However, I don't think targeted investment like this is discrimination, though. In this case it is legitimately an undeserved market and potentially a gain for Apple to go after it.

Prosecutions aren't something that should be done by mob demand. In the case of Breona Taylor the police were returning fire. You can question whether they should have served that warrant, but you will never in a million years convict someone of murder when they were returning fire.

Why should the state have power to police speech during elections? (FB shouldn't either)

At the time the constitution was written "everyone" in any given industry was thousands of small businesses each of which was only subject to the public pressure of the people in the town in which they were based. So it was literally unthinkable that a whole industry could deny service to one person. I bet if the founders had envisioned an entity as powerful as Amazon, they would have written in constraints for private entities too.

When the government is threatening regulation against the private-sector because these companies don't censor, then I think this could potentially be considered a 1st amendment issue.

But since this action appears coordinated across major platforms and likely in response to political pressure from the now in power Democratic party (Amazon is being paid for hosting, so no advertisers fleeing issue), I think there now may be a real first amendment issue.

You left out the first definition:

to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control

"Reform the police" is a slogan and accurate.

The problem is that "defund" means remove all funding. So these people are playing word games.

Are you suggesting that the design was made with the intention to take votes from Gore? Because that would be necessary to call it a "stolen" election. I acknowledge the possibility that the outcome was in error.

Getting angry when a stranger makes a statement that you disagree with is not a normal social reaction, or at least it wasn't until recently. The possibility of error is just one reason that it shouldn't be.

How so? The vote differential from FL was clearly within the margin of error of the counting methods, but that only suggests the possibility of a counting error, not a steal.

No they aren't. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

de·fund

prevent from continuing to receive funds. "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"

When I was a kid my family went to DC for a vacation. We walked up the stairs of the capitol and in through the front door. It's a sad state of affairs that barricades are necessary now.

Declining to use military force against a riot is not siding with the rioters. By your logic the military also sided with the BLM looters.