261–265 of 265 posts
What's heart breaking is that in spite of overwhelming objective evidence, the same MAGA folks who were apoplectic about corruption under the previous administration(remember Hunter Biden's laptop?) are now suddenly OK with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are talking about the billionaires and trillionaire who spent as much as they could to get this elected then you are correct it is what THEY wanted.
They got what they wanted by making half the country's idiots want it too
That suggests more non-idiots voted Trump than Harris.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have billions of dollars, they're short on TIME. They want computers in racks now and (rightfully imo) look at yearslong approval processes with disgust. Look at Ashburn, VA - they extract loads of money from these companies, and they keep getting investments because constructing new datacenters is easy thanks to state laws. It's not about the money here it's about the time.
> They want computers in racks now and (rightfully imo) look at yearslong approval processes with disgust. Disgust of the rules for me but not for thee? The rest of us have to follow the rules, but not them. How about disgust for actual pollution? They could build clean, quiet and fast if "> It's not about the money it's about the time" It doesn't add up, like at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren’t “technicalities.” What types of activities the laws apply to is a central aspect of every regulatory regime.
They are technicalities, because the intent of the law is clean air. A carve out for temporary generators is clearly not intended to allow megawatts of permanent generation to operate outside of the regulatory umbrella and abuse of it is allowing the rich to skate by on a technicality .
That’s not how laws work, especially the Clean Air Act. “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” (https://ozgengungor.medium.com/one-of-those-quotes-thomas-so...).
The Clean Air Act was not designed to achieve cleaner air at any cost, but instead to achieve targeted pollution control that would have the greatest value at acceptable cost. The modern structure of the act was set in place in 1970 under Nixon, and is full of legislative compromises to balance incremental benefits to air quality against burden on industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its very much using the letter That’s how law works.
No it isn't. Otherwise the entire concept of Original Intent would be dead in the water rather than a cornerstone of how multiple federal judges all the way to the Supreme court rule on cases.