one thing i definitely worry is about using public lands for oil, mineral extraction purposes.
while America has a bounty of public land acreage wise, 4 years and a complete control of the government is a lot of time to do some lasting damage to the ecosystem by opening up these areas for privatization.
The environment is certainly screwed. I also expect that regulations against air and water pollution will be on the chopping block so not only will the ecosystem suffer, but the population will too.
The recent media attention on possible lithium fields in and around Arkansas was an interesting one to me. It seems like one that I could see the DNC latching onto for battery capacity despite the fact that it would still likely meaning he same kind of impact in federal land as mining oil, coal, etc.
Lithium deposits are common -- Nevada has significant ones too. The question is if the lithium is concentrated enough to make extracting it financially viable.
That wasn't really my point though. The discovered deposits, well expected deposits since its based on modelling data, could easily lead to a massive mining operation to extract it. That will do damage very similar to the exact kind of fossil fuel extraction that is a main argument against fossil fuels and for alternative energy sources.
I highly doubt that it's just 4 years of republicans. I think they'll win the 2 terms after trump as well, so we're potentially looking at 12 years of republicans in the white house.
Agree. There are a lot of mistakes that can be undone, but ecological damage can take decades to restore its former beauty, and extinct species don't come back (some recent headlines notwithstanding).
It's hard to see Trump do any worse than Biden on this front, but I'm sure he'll try. Biden admin approved over 50% more oil/drilling permits than Trump. More than any president in history
In short, granting permits from lease sales performed in the last administration is a trailing indicator of.. the last administration's activity.
The more important measure for the Biden administration's energy development policy was how many new lease sales were performed, and how many leases were effectively cancelled or otherwise put in limbo.
"Mixed messages from the administration – like canceling lease sales one minute and touting approved permits to drill the next – create uncertainty within the energy industry, hindering long-term investments and exacerbating challenges for the United States"
https://archive.is/9x1an
"The Biden administration has leased fewer acres for oil-and-gas drilling offshore and on federal land than any other administration in its early stages dating back to the end of World War II, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis."
"The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 requires onshore oil and gas leasing “at least quarterly.” While the Biden administration has been in office for six quarters, it has conducted auctions in just one of them. That happened in late June, after the administration came under increasing pressure to tame soaring gasoline prices at the pump in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine."
"Mr. Biden pledged to stop drilling on federal lands as a candidate, saying the nation needs to transition to clean energy. He softened his stance as oil prices soared following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—calling for boosting oil supplies to ease runaway inflation—but he has nonetheless spurned a leasing program that for decades has been a go-to asset for presidents looking to raise U.S. energy production."
The Biden admin upped production over the course of his term, but that increase is only relative to the 2020 drop-off. It only returned to previous levels in late '23. It did very slightly surpass those levels into early '24: 13 MMbbl/d at pre-covid to 13.3. So 50% more permits resulted in a rounding error at its peak.
Much of that increase went to export. On top of that, Biden sold half of the strategic petroleum reserve.
The general point is that you can drill all you want, but sending it overseas doesn't help Americans. The best result is that we buy back gasoline at a margin that's tolerable, but that's not helping either price at the pump or overall energy costs.
There is a partisan disagreement on energy independence.
Overall, maybe. But the local price is certainly sensitive to production costs, depending on the derivative. Like a pipeline is much more efficient than lng in container.
He canceled pipelines and repeatedly refused to extend leases. Just because he "Approved" more, speaks to the business climate and pricing of oil. It'd be better to see how many his administration actively fought against for just the politics... Take the keystone oil pipeline... It was effectively finished and they canceled it... how wasteful.
4 years and a complete control of the supreme court guarantees lasting damage to the ecosystem (and all other aspects of society) since all the conservative/right-wing issues just need to be appealed up to SCOTUS and they'll get their way - and set legal precedent on the way.
There's two justices ready to retire, and if Trump replaces them (and he will) that'll be five supreme court justices appointed by Trump and chosen by his cronies. The entire legal system will be corrupted for decades.
You can't really tell how long his presidency lasts. Two term limit is just a rule that can be changed with help of judiciary branch. If Americans want him for a third term who'd object?
Trying to reinterpret "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" to allow for that would be quite a spectacular feat of jurisprudence.
It's just 22nd amendment. Can't be more important than the will of the nation. The only question is do the Americans like Trump as much as they like booze or can it be at least made to look like they do.
Theoretically, if changes were put into place to allow a run for a third term (which is highly unlikely given age), then that also opens the door for someone like Obama running again.
People don't seem to understand that even Trump's judges still see themselves as JUDGES. They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law, and there were several instances in his first term where his own SCOTUS Justices told him to pound sand. It's not so simple as "nominated by Trump == inherently corrupt," much as he'd like it to be that way.
Only saving grace. Although Putin is just 6 years younger and his strive to leave legacy already messed up the world. One can only wonder what mess will Trump's attempts at leaving legacy cause.
I am not talking about the legacy. The legacy will live one - I mean technically the world has changed post 2016 and it has not gone back since then. And it won't.
With 2024 it might change the landscape more.
Sure but after a few decades of packing we'd eventually end up with a direct democracy where every adult citizen is a Supreme Court justice and the legislative branch would be sidestepped entirely. Seems better than our current system IMO.
Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.
Yeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.
“Smallest in the world” doesn’t seem like a good reason at all.
The reason why the Democratic party revolted against FDR attempt to stuff the Supreme Court was because it was such an obvious runaround of the Constituion.
Everyone thinks that the Dems and Republicans are different sides, but they are on the same side, money. This has been going on for at least 50 years. Every 5 years I hear this bull shit. IF the dems got in it would be more balanced. Nothing changes until we reevaluate our support for system that doesn't serve us.
It depends -- for all his bad ideas (and there are many) some of the things he promises could be good and impactful, and he may have enough leverage and power to do this time, especially when contrasting SCOTUS 2017 with SCOTUS 2025.
I think 2026 will be a referendum on:
- Has Trump F'd things up severely?
and
- Have Democrats stopped running on DEI as the main reason to vote for them and instead clearly laid out and justified their plans? And have they gained any support outside the elites?
One irony atop another: securing this land (against the onslaught of big business) was a celebration for Conservatives, not Liberals.
That and, I miss the Republican party that didn't actively try to piss off the ACLU every hour on the hour. It's just nonstop…
• book bans
• rhetoric about sending the military after political opponents
• politicians ruled as being above the law
• short circuiting due process with immigrants, both illegal and not
• breaking up families of would-be asylum seekers for no damn reason
• the Trump Muslim ban
• the constant erection of/for Ten Commandments statues
It used to be a thing in some conservative circles, “No, that teacher is Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, not Council of 1879, I don't want his people educating my child about what he thinks the Ten Commandments really mean!!”
I used to fancy myself a conservative back then. The ACLU and libertarians were the people that the Left had kind of given up on, and we were happy to say “yes, come be conservative with us, and we will try not to piss you off.” Now everyone has given up on them, they had to hold their noses and vote Kamala and pray for a few more years of “not again.”
I'm not even a libertarian, just don't understand why we are wasting resources pissing them off
> The GOP wants to ban pornographic materials in children's classrooms.
One of the most popular books on the "ban" lists is Handmaid's Tale. If you read that and classify it as pornographic, I might direct you to retake high school English to brush up on reading comprehension.
There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK.
Really? I'd say there is a political difference. I can escape a private corporation if I really wanted to, or shop elsewhere for that specific content. I can't generally escape government rules unless they're specially crafted to carve out private schools. And if they do carve out private schools, then you're saying the materials aren't actually harmful to rich privileged kids and only the poors?
Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really?
Back when I was a democrat, the democrat party would not have stood for this.
> Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country?
Let's be precise with our words. A monopoly doesn't mean no competition. Amazon only controls 50% of the online+offline print book market which as far as monopolies go isn't as dominant as Google's 88% and closer to iOS's ~50%. It's a dominant position but there's plenty of room for you to go obtain books elsewhere. Additionally, self-publishing has never been easier.
> Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really?
No idea what this is about. If we're still on the can't publish anything "anti-trans" topic, might be worthwhile to consider that people identifying as trans make up less than half of 1 percent of the population (~0.4% if we're rounding up). Maybe there just isn't actually all that much interest in a niche population that has no power?
You're arguing to the degree of monopoly but the Democratic party I knew didn't, for example, claim workers had power because there were three auto companies.
No they recognized the power imbalance and corrected it. That's the party I left. Lord knows what it has become.
But staying on topic. You were arguing that that's the more dangerous situation than the government banning books? I just don't understand this line of reasoning, especially when said "banned" books are arguably not pornography & the bans typically are targeting things like discussion about racism, homosexuality, teen pregnancy, abortions etc. It's basically "I don't like these topics & I don't want my child to think about them and have an alternate perspective shown"
May be useful to read up on the data behind the bans.
At the end of the day, children have no right to free speech. No GOP policy has ever prevented parents from showing whatever to their children. The only thing sought to be regulated is what set of books any child can pick out. I'm honestly shocked this is controversial.
Do I agree with all the curatorial decisions? No of course not. However, it's not censorship, it's curation of material for children's consumption.
On the other hand, Amazon's censorship is targeted at adults. You're correct that Amazon itself is only 50% of the marketplace. But Amazon is not just Amazon the company. It's also a marketplace where other sellers are. Altogether, those sellers constitute 40% of the e-commerce market. Again, a significant portion. Their decision to not allow those selling 'controversial' books on their market (and keep in mind they will sell you all kinds of depraved pornographic material. You can even buy Mein Kampf on amazon [1]) is basically greatly limiting the distribution of the book. That is un-American.
Censorship is not just about government. At some point people need to get that. It's just like redlining. Businesses cannot decide to en masse deny the market to an entire group of people or ideas.
[1] adults should be able to. Children may be not.
> At the end of the day, children have no right to free speech
Was there a change to the constitution I'm unaware of? Children have all the same rights as adults albeit there are certain limited situations where those rights are allowed to be restricted or impinged. Not that book banning is a 1st amendment issue for students.
We're in agreement that it's OK to curate that content. However, that curation should not be random parents complaining and creating permanent bans on content, which is how this book banning works.
> However, it's not censorship, it's curation of material for children's consumption
> On the other hand, Amazon's censorship is targeted at adults
When I like it it's curation and when I don't it's censorship. Got it.
Just to be clear, are you saying that the ACLU has not been pissed off at the GOP for book bans? Or are you just saying they should be mad at Amazon more?
(Because like, libertarians and the ACLU are not going to get mad at Amazon for deciding what rules they want to enforce in their own marketplace. Which makes me read your comment as just another instance of shouting “fuck the libertarians!” that I above called a phenomenal waste of conservative resources. Like, why? There shouldn't be this strange alliance between the “only government that can be trusted is a dead government” people and the fucking political Left, like, WTF if that’s what’s going on)
I'm saying that banning the publication of books on a market place has a greater effect on the distributoin of information than banning books in classrooms.
I fully agree that you can't use the law to force Amazon to unban the books.
I'm just saying that private sector book ban for adults is more damaging than the removal of controversial material in children's libraries.
I get that, probably if I got you talking to my "dead gummint" friends you'd talk past each other about the word "damaging", they'd say "that's not damaging at all, what are you smoking?" etc. etc.
Just to be clear, what you need to understand if you want to bring them back Right is that for them "damaging" is defined by "someone shows up with a gun at your house and tells you to do something that you don't want to do." Amazon can do whatever, precisely because the people who Amazon sends to your house, like they might have a gun if they're practicing open-carry, but they don't tell you to do anything that you don't want to do. They literally cannot define any damage that Amazon is doing by manipulating their marketplace, because Amazon's not sending out the Men With Guns.
And just to be clear, again, I don't agree with my friends on these matters, I just find it absolutely fucking nuts that back when I was a hardline conservative I made these friends and now that I'm moderate and independent somehow they are the ones that I'm seeing supporting Kamala and the Democrats.
Kids are great and the world is less doomed than some will have you believe. We can improve, create, and make things better and that doesn’t happen if humanity dies out.
Should be simple. But the fact is that the human species is destroying the human species (along with many others), and the human species depends on the biodiversity (pretty sure you've eaten something today, and it did not magically appear in your plate).
Everything the left does in the US is in pursuit of those 3 things. The right has and will now continue to do everything in their power to destroy all 3 those things in the name of money. And not money for you or me.
Of course, the republican populous doesn't believe that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
The reality is much, much worse than you, or even most people realize.
Maybe morality isn't discussed enough. People can proclaim that morality is subjective and hence less worthy of consideration or overall less important as a result of not being a constant in all people; However all of us have things we consider to be good and bad.
If people are interested in propagation of those 3 decided upon virtues, then imho it'd be a good idea to try and explain to others why these are important to aspire for.
At the moment, people share their values to each other with some form of acrimony, and expects the other to submit/change, or just hurt. It perpetuates this vicious cycle of no one being able to productively talk to each other if they disagree. I think there's mismatch on a fundamental level. A lot of spite and lack of desire to understand (some more than others).
Doesn’t really seem like that in most cases. As a moderate and independent I’d say the left seems to want to control a lot, create very little. The right has an anti-science problem so not a ton better
I’d advise you to ignore lay explanations of the space - outside of the industry most of the discourse about self driving cars is poisoned by Elon’s deceptive presentations and his followers who parrot what he says.
If you want a grounded explanation of how Tesla’s stack works, follow @greentheonly on twitter. He’s a Tesla reverse engineer who regularly posts about the software that’s actually running on the car.
If you want an explanation about how real AV companies stacks work, I’d read Sebastian Thrun’s robotics textbook - then imagine what’s outlined in that book but with ML plugged in to a ton of spaces throughout the stack. This is also similar to how Tesla’s stack works, btw - greens just good to follow because a lot of people refuse to believe Tesla isn’t running some kind of “LLM but for driving” fully end to end black box model.
Tesla won’t launch a robotaxi anytime soon because they can’t use remote support or HD maps - although I think they’ve been stepping up their mapping efforts. Even the demo at Universal studios a few weeks ago was HD mapped - per @greentheonlys twitter.
I worked in the space for years and have seen the internal of both a traditional robotaxi company’s stack and Tesla’s.
For reference, Sebastian Thrun led the Stanford team that won the Darpa (self driving car) Grand Challenge in 2005, and then joined Google to lead Waymo (then called the Google Self-Driving Car Project), among other accomplishments.
the results with grok-1 were unimpressive summaries based on the tweets, with a 10%-20% hallucinations (when enquiring about paris olympics specific events).
yet to see if this new model is able to do any better on that regard
Plenty of ways to send an image to it - right click image in Finder, share menu on iOS from photos etc, replaced the built in macOS shortcuts for taking screenshots with Dropshare so a quick upload button to share a screenshot.
That combined with pointing a subdomain at the r2 bucket means I can share images virtually instantly without thinking too hard about it (the r2 URL is copied to clipboard once the image is uploaded). Having a personalised vanity domain is a cherry on top too http://img.cohan.dev/AXsaG.jpg
Also means it's on me to make sure images are available in the future and I trust me to keep my images online forever more than sites that have to find a way to fund themselves eventually.
this is what happens when the leadership wants you to ship something "good enough" out the door in a fear to not fall behind in whatever race they have conjured up in their minds.
this product on some levels, when looked at in isolation, feels as useless as did Rabbit's R1. However, Microsoft is a ginormous corporation, and hence can keep on throwing releases like these at the wall hoping something stick. The leaders will never learn, and I am sure, despite all the good points raised in this article, this release will be or is already being celebrated as a success within the internal circles.
reply