I had a hard time understanding. At first I thought it meant babies born near Superfund sites were riskier CEOs.
Then I thought it meant managers who were in charge of divisions that created Superfund sites before being promoted to CEO made riskier decisions as CEO.
And now I'm back to "pollution babies take greater risks". Which to my surprise was a surprisingly reasonable hypothesis.
> [...] the Chin—an mostly Christian minority in a predominantly Buddhist Myanmar—have faced systemic ethnic and religious persecution. The Tatmadaw and successive military juntas, including the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) have committed widespread abuses, including forced labor, torture, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killings.
The other party had the house senate and presidency for 2 yrs, made little progress, kept no promises. I don't think partisan politics really relevant here
During those two years, that party passed some form of universal healthcare (ACA) and banking reform meant to stop the next financial meltdown (Dodd-Frank). Those were the two major promises they made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
This is just whataboutism and frankly unnecessary defensiveness. There were not partisan commentary made. The literal advertised platform of the dominant party is anti regulation so why did you feel the need to go all reactionary to it?
I don’t understand this line of reasoning - it’s like saying “you’re not allowed steam engines until you drain all of your mines”. It’s moralistic, rather than pragmatic.
It's just a passive aggressive means of disagreeing with the value of something without providing any argument for such. The exact same rhetorical fallacies are widespread when it comes to debates around the values of e.g. pursuing efforts to become a multiplanetary species.
I think it's safe to call it a rhetorical fallacy because its underlying premise implies humanity can somehow only focus on a very finite number of things at once and that funds directed to 'your thing' would somehow otherwise be directed to 'their thing' which is even more absurd.
Well concrete and steel are the major material components, fairly cheap, but pumps and turbines require high precision machining, fairly expensive. Lithium will probably be cheaper.
Probably not economical in current conditions, but worth doing to say it was done.
But the pumps and turbines are based on how much power it can process, not how much it can store. Most storage systems have a big downside in that the J that you use once a year costs just as much to store as the one you use every day. This perhaps permits putting a lot of air down there as reserve for when the sun doesn't shine for days on end. Lithium is non-viable for dealing with long periods of darkness (big storm on top of your collectors.) To ensure the lights stay on in the worst case you need weeks worth of storage.
They tested two approaches: "Open ventilation" (hose to the surface) and "Closed ventilation" (no air sources).
"The most important finding was that an air-connection to the surface is not needed, reducing the technical effort significantly." [1]
"Charging requires more time and energy with closed ventilation. In return the higher pressure difference results in a higher turbine power and energy during the discharging phase…ventilation is not beneficial in this regard." [2]
Are you saying focus on "the economy" is uniquely American? I do think some interesting arguments could be made to that end; I don't know enough about other countries to say.
I think it's more about a common lack of understanding that there is a world outside of America that actually matters, economically speaking and that the "economy" is actually a global system.
Then I thought it meant managers who were in charge of divisions that created Superfund sites before being promoted to CEO made riskier decisions as CEO.
And now I'm back to "pollution babies take greater risks". Which to my surprise was a surprisingly reasonable hypothesis.