61–70 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idiots will buy it. The courts won’t. Cutting off the data stymies the latter.
The courts are compelled to defer to SCOTUS, which has demonstrated that it is ideologically aligned with the regime.
If you read SCOTUS's opinions this is obviously false. Alito and Thomas are bought. But the others have their own quirks and agendas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some private companies operate PMW satellite constellations and we could accelerate the acquisition of these data, but there are limited (read: none) federal mechanisms to do this and due to vertical integration in the weather industry, the operators of these constellations may not actually be inclined to do so - and certainly won't do so on the cheap, especially for the federal government. That's the goal, actuall…
The companies I'm referring to are (generally) not publicly traded, so it's not quite that simple. Is it possible that some sort of backroom shenanigans are going on here? Yeah, absolutely, especially as several knowledgable folks speaking publicly about this episode are pointing their fingers at opaque procedure within Space Force. But Hanlon's razor ought to apply until shown otherwise.
Stock doesn't have to be publicly traded to be traded.
The problem of important projects surviving political change is a tough one. A lot of these important projects have a single point of failure - who is the president every four years. I wonder how we build institutions and resources resilient to that? I realize privatization is an ugly word, but could some of this stuff be provided by the private sector? Can we make it possible to fund initiatives in a multinational m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurricane risk has been grossly exaggerated for years. Every year people say it will be the end of Florida as we know it. But those promised hurricanes never come. The worst is some flooding and damage at coastal areas, but it’s always anti-climactic. The real reason insurance is high is because of fraudulent claim risk. Hurricanes themselves are more or less a solved problem in Florida. That data is useless.
> Hurricane risk has been grossly exaggerated for years Year-over-year, economic impacts and disruptions due to tropical cyclones are dramatically rising. Most of this is an exposure issue. But long-tail events - like Andrew's utter devastation of Homestead in 1992 or Katrina's unique confluence of storm surge in urban/suburban parishes in LA - can and do happen. One day, there will be another Galveston or Homestead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some private companies operate PMW satellite constellations and we could accelerate the acquisition of these data, but there are limited (read: none) federal mechanisms to do this and due to vertical integration in the weather industry, the operators of these constellations may not actually be inclined to do so - and certainly won't do so on the cheap, especially for the federal government. That's the goal, actuall…
The companies I'm referring to are (generally) not publicly traded, so it's not quite that simple. Is it possible that some sort of backroom shenanigans are going on here? Yeah, absolutely, especially as several knowledgable folks speaking publicly about this episode are pointing their fingers at opaque procedure within Space Force. But Hanlon's razor ought to apply until shown otherwise.
I'm no longer willing to grant this administration this privilege. The last few months were an utter clownshow of corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts are compelled to defer to SCOTUS, which has demonstrated that it is ideologically aligned with the regime.
> SCOTUS, which has demonstrated that it is ideologically aligned with the regime If you read SCOTUS's opinions this is obviously false. Alito and Thomas are bought. But the others have their own quirks and agendas.
For ordinary people it can feel reasonable to keep your head down and hope that somehow this blows over. But for SCOTUS it's entirely within their power to draw a line, and it seems like at best their idea has become "Maybe if we give him what he wants he'll go away?" which is dumb, Kipling wrote his famous poem "Dane-geld" about this, it's well over a century old and it's about a mistake England (or rather one of its Kings) made last millennium (when he wrote it, ie now over 1000 years ago).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand what you’re complaining about here. Lying?
Yes, when the media lies it's bad . People used to understand that fact. Now media gets a free pass on certain lies because Bad Man Bad, and (evidently) people aren't even allowed to point out the lie. Hint: when the media can make up whatever they want about someone, they can quickly twist perception to make anyone into the Bad Man.
But a couple of things should be considered here:
* Intention
* Degree
* Impact
Degree is likewise to be noted, where it can range from lost nuance to outright lies.
Impact is also a concern if it is a concern. A news article that compels people to randomly attack their neighbors is more of an issue than one that tempts you to buy a new snack.
And most importantly of all: "the media" is not a singular entity and they vary strongly in their veracity and scope, as well as their agendas. Some are at their core intending to serve the public, others are a business to sell advertising, and others are literally propaganda outfits to serve vested interests (e.g., Fox News was created to be the PR arm of the GOP -- this is a fact and not conjecture).
So yes, the NYT can get things wrong (like the lead up to the Iraq invasion), I trust them more than Fox News (which destroyed a community by spreading lies about their new immigrant neighbors eating people's pets).
Hope this helps!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intent is to disable the capability to ignore the data. If you allow access to someone else, you're not preventing the data capture and dissemination. If the data shows hurricanes are intensifying in strength due to climate change, and you no longer capture the data, you can say with a straight face "No it isn't and you can't prove it." How large systems with exposure to these places (insurance, capital markets)…
> What do you do when you don't have the data to accurately price risk? Insurance companies will just be sending up their own satellites, and that is the true goal. Force people to pay money to private entities for a service that used to be provided by the government for free. Functionally, in such a system there is no difference between that and regular taxes, just in a private system there's opportunities for those…
On the other hand, in the first Trump admin the AccuWeather spam site guy was trying to restrict NWS data to private companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lee_Myers
I think AccuWeather opposed the Project 2025 plan to remove weather tracking frothe government though, they just wanted it to be tax payer paid but exclusively provided to corporations for sale to make competitive upstart weather sites harder to establish (you can bid more if you already have lots of users, without them you have to build something so great and potentially profitable that you can get VC to fund your purchases of the data).
https://www.masslive.com/news/2024/07/accuweather-rejects-pr...
How can it be set back decades? Even if you had to design new satellites and send them up it would not take a decade to do.
[flagged]
Good grief. American KH-11 electro-optical spy satellites have 2.4 meter primary mirrors and orbit at ~300km or less. Ease yourself off the anti-Musk subreddits or wherever you're getting this incoherent nonsense.
The mirror itself would dwarf anything launched for Starlink, multiple times over.