541–550 of 585 posts
We don’t need offshore wind or onshore. Wish the US focused more on Solar. Seems to be the smartest path forward. China understands and is gunning for Nuclear and Solar. Geothermal and wind are nice but too location dependent.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/02/07/half-of-global-opera...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe but I think it’s more about they think in terms of unitary executive. So if there’s any discretion given the agencies - I don’t know in this case - SCOTUS lets the president decide. In many ways this is more how a parliamentary democracy exists that a republic.
POTUS power has already extended well beyond even congress.
Congress assumed
- it had a legislative veto (any committee could override an agency)
- independent agencies existed.
So it gave broad authority with those assumed checks.
SCOTUS declared legislative veto unconstitutional in 1982. And administrative state is actively going away.
So POTUS can do a lot of damage using the law itself.
This is the new system. Dems need to use it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> vast amounts of money on cultural programs for countries that didn't want them. I don't understand. How do you give someone money if they don't want it?
More like "if we can't be partners we'll find your enemies and fund them instead." or, "we'll partner with your next of kin who may be more sympathetic [or suggestive] to our concerns."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be confusing first and second derivatives.
China had an emissions decline in 2025 that is substantially attributable to a decline in industry, per their first source. The decline in industry is plausible so long as GDP growth in 2025 is lower than GDP growth in 2024, and is additionally supported by the newly introduced source that the commentor did not read. Yes, it is possible to have an economic slowdown and a positive GDP print. In general it's weird to s…
Total emissions also went down. Yeah GDP went up less than last year but that hardly matters when we're talking about an emissions reduction. Not "less emissions growth than last year", an absolute decrease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and trying to avoid costs to carriers Isn’t that just code for trying to violate regulations without getting caught?
Yes but no. They wanted as many pilots to fly the new aircraft as possible without having to get them re-type certified which is pretty expensive. The issue is that pilots were completely unaware of the MCAS and when it malfunctioned there was not correct training in place because the system was "a hidden abstraction" Clearly the system worked as intended because nobody had to be re-certified to fly the aircraft but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy Correct me if I'm wrong, though there are already protections there. It's just president, senate, congress, SCOTUS all agree on this. IMHO - most effective constitutional change would be to get rid of first past the post election system, electoral colleges, gerrymandering, etc. I think USA's two party system ma…
The US has had worse structural power imbalances in the past. It’s gotten over them (after a generation or more) by - coalition shifts - every election, new groups going and out of each party - demographic shifts - shrinking / growing / moving around of different groups - external shock - war / depression / ?? changes incentives of governance (see Civil War, Great Depression) - hegemons dilemma - the in power party o…
Demographic shifts and a robust social safety net are also naturally reshaping the landscape
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operating a commercial reactor and keeping it up to regulations isn’t exactly cheap. It requires people, periodic inspections, maintenance, and lots of paperwork to prove you are not cutting corners.
When the cost of people is more than the cost of equipment, upkeep and maintenance that is arguably exactly when overregulation becomes burdensome
indeed, that's the case for many businesses, even with little-to-no regulation, so it's hard to agree with your opinion there.
e.g. most of the cost of hiring a plumber is a "cost of people" – buying torch fuel and fittings is a much smaller fraction of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised residential PV even interacts with radar -- or is that the other signal intelligence part?
Big flat conductive panels make good reflectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its also bullshit to say the EU has less regulation on developing planes than the US. Boing was just incompetent and mismanaged because of decades of government handouts keeping the business going and MBA wielding idiots cutting costs at every corner. It became a private equity managed business without ever being bought by private equity.
Arguing the EU has less regulation than the USA on anything is 99.9999% always wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated. I think this is vastly overstated by the media. Boeing is still heavily regulated and has a pretty good safety record compared 20 or 30 years prior. The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers > Some things need to be regulated, esp. if mistakes…
> The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers Meaning they tried to skirt around the regulations, including regulatory capture by pushing self-certification because competition caught up to them while they spent money on buybacks instead of investing in R&D, perhaps even investing in absorbing some costs of certificat…
No, this is literally the opposite of what happened. They did not want all the operators to go through lengthy and expensive recertification processes as required by the FAA so they make the system as close as possible which likely cost them millions of dollars.
The issue was that pilots were not aware, they received very little training and knowledge on the subject when they should have had more (just not a new type cert)