swansont

Worldwide electricity generation is around 30 x 10^12 kWh (30 trillion) At $0.10 per kWh, that’s 30 trillion US dollars a year. Chasing a few percent of that seems worth a few billion, even discounting peripheral discoveries that might happen.

The lack of US permits after Three Mile Island might have been more about perception than actual activism. i.e. they didn't want the backlash of people protesting or speaking up at hearings, or just negative press, because of what the public felt afterwards. So a PR issue more than anything.

No. The reconstitution happens under very limited circumstances, and the universe is nowhere near that set of circumstances.

AFAICT nobody has given a summary of the video, as required by the rules, so it does not exist, as far as discussion in this thread is concerned. All you have is citations, so you’d better provide them. What’s your area of expertise? You, too, have given no information as to quantum physics. If you thought that you could bluff your way through this by playing offense and that nobody would notice that there’s nothing that supports the premise of the OP, you’re wrong

Ones with no leverage. Banks are harder to dodge, I think. He relinquishes the collateral. He might be able to renegotiate, but getting tagged as a bad risk makes it harder to keep borrowing.

You’re thinking of infrastructure week…which will happen any time now

The Chips Act bit means they already had committed to some construction, so it’s possible some of this is agreeing to stuff they were already going to do, like Mexico and Canada did with the first round of tariffs. Then they slow roll anything past that, and, as you say, keep promising the next bit is just around the corner.

The article is a bit thin on details, and the mention of the Chips Act means they had already committed to investing while Biden was president. And a pledge to construct new plants is not money in the hand - it could be a bluff to wait out Trump. You can always come up with excuses for construction delays. Permits and real estate acquisitions take time. More if the government’s bureaucracy has been gutted. They could also blame supply chain disruptions from tariffs and no construction workers from deportations - they could end up blaming Trump for all of the delays and end up not spending much at all. Foxconn pledged to build a plant in Wisconsin during Trump’s first term, and then backed out. TSMC might end up doing something similar.

It’s generally easier to change legislation than to amend a constitution. That’s why I argue that protections enacted by legislation are not rights. In the US the ninth and tenth amendments state: IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Basically, if a power is not reserved to the government, they can’t stop you from doing something. The government can regulate certain things about purchasing a house. That would most likely happen at the state level; any federal limits would likely be limited to things involving interstate commerce (perhaps with mortgages)

I don’t think he seeks isolation; I don’t think he understands commerce enough to know the implications of his actions (he bankrupted a casino, for crying out loud, among numerous other failed business ventures). He hasn’t demonstrated he knows how tariffs work and he’s a bully, a would-be mafioso, so he thinks shake-downs are how things work, because that’s what he knows. He inherited a good economy from Obama and there were enough adults in the room to keep him from crashing the economy until COVID hit, and he thinks it was his doing. Now he’s wrecking it and he and his minions are trying to blame it on Biden. Bad things are never his fault. If the US ceases to be a stable economic partner other countries will avoid doing business here, and a certain amount of US prosperity will be lost if we aren’t considered a good risk for e.g. lending money to us, and people stop buying those things we still export. But that’s probably too much nuance for him. He might be able to bully one country here and there, but with a bunch of them aligned in opposition, he lacks the leverage he imagines he has. A lot of rich avoid taxes by borrowing against their wealth. The interest paid is much lower than the capital gains you might pay on the appreciated wealth. Those unrealized gains get zeroed out when that wealth is passed on to the next generation. “invest, borrow, die” But if the assets lose value, then the loans aren’t covered, the banks call the loans and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Which is why protesting/boycotting Tesla is a current strategy to attack Musk. Much of what he‘s done is based on Tesla’s valuation. If sales crater then eventually so does the stock. If he has to sell billions in stock to cover the loans he could owe cap gains on top if it, and it drives the stock price down even more. Pissing off the world is a bad move for him.

Good thing that lying isn’t a sin, then.

That’s not symmetry. The performers also have no right not to be offended. Perhaps part of the motivation for the performance was they were offended by the far-religious-right’s attitudes. The church/religious folk have the right to say things that comment on LGBTQ people. And they do so, continually. If they can be offensive but protected from being offended, that’s not symmetric.

I think there a quasi bell curve, where people who don’t understand are afraid of it because they only know the fear-mongering, don’t trust experts, and the tendency to fear the unknown. Those who have some understanding are more accepting because they can do a more rational analysis (like coal power causing lots of deaths, but not in spectacular fashion of a nuclear accident), but the people who know enough to understand some of the nuances and more complex issues surrounding it might be more wary. (issues of profit vs safety, non-standardized plants making safety issues pretty much unique to each site)

They were offended, but have no right not to be offended. Those who didn’t like it could simply not watch. (Only those few physically there wouldn’t have that option). I feel offended by certain aspects of organized religion, but it’s not a problem since nobody is forcing me into a church. I read something earlier today about how Christians in the US feel persecuted when their beliefs are minimized or dismissed, but that’s just the privilege of freedom to practice religion, and having their beliefs amplified institutionally. It’s not actual persecution. It’s manufactured outrage, and they have to go looking for things to be angry about. And I claim that this is not a right. You are assuming it is, but give an example showing it isn’t Who?

The framework was there, since we can amend the principles the country is supposed to run on. But the current principles of DEI have been a long time coming, and as far as widespread adoption (by people in power) clearly we’re not there yet. Yes, the framers were egalitarian, but also limited by the attitudes of their time. Change in attitudes are more often incremental, even if implementation takes larger steps.

Women lacking rights suggests a meaning. Only white landowners were able to vote in many states.

And the DoI does not. It took almost a century and a civil war to get rid of slavery, almost 150 years for women to get the right to vote, another 40 for the civil rights act (because abolishing slavery didn’t abolish the attitudes behind it, which still persist) The attitudes weren’t in the DoI

! Moderator Note You first. This is way too vague, and just pot-stirring. Define what “bankrupt the US” means, and “the antichrist of Capitalism”

Yes, he lies, but I think you’re projecting when you say he doesn’t think they are the problem. That’s you, knowing better. I think people continually underestimate people like him because of the projection. There’s a lot of evidence that he thinks non-whites and non-males are inferior. And that his bigotry swamps any realization you think he has (assuming that he’s intelligent enough to know the truth, and I think there’s more projection there), too)

The freedom to act is simple - no such right exists. Not as a right that broadly exists in democracies (such as freedom to believe in religion, or freedom of speech) Your “freedom to act” is severely limited. You can’t stab someone, or drive at reckless speeds, or just take things that belong to someone else. You also described a right not to be offended (the kerfuffle with the Olympics) which simply does not exist.

The reference was to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution

How about telling us what you are talking about instead of what you aren’t In the US the attitude is certain rights are inherent and not granted by anyone or anything.

! Moderator Note You will have a chance to make this compliant with the rules of speculations. Thus far you’ve met none of the requirements. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

As some of you may already know, the SFN server hardware is currently located in the UK. I will quote from what was announced to the staff: “This year the UK government passed a bill called the Online Safety Act. A brief description of the Act is set out here, but the tl;dr of it is that there are now a set of laws in place in the UK that put a duty of care on operators of social media sites in order to make them accountable for the things that are posted on those sites, which could be harmful to children and other users. The focus in the media has mostly been around the larger sites like Facebook, but actually, the act is extremely broad” The upshot of this is that a modest operation like ours can’t be hosted in the UK on servers run by SFN; the requirements are too onerous and no individuals should be asked to take on the liability should someone find that weren’t compliant in some detail. It’s not enough to think we’re taking the right steps, and we don’t have lawyers on retainer to make sure of things. (Small UK bulletin board sites might be shuttering by the end of this week if their owners are aware of what’s going on) Shifting to a hosting option that avoids this is moving forward. This might end up being completely transparent to our members and visitors, but Murphy always seems to pop up and invoke their law, so there might be disruptions. We will keep you apprised as more information becomes available.

All men are created equal literally meant men. White men. Women had few rights, and if you weren’t white, there’s a good chance you were property. And that's the modern republican view - whites being inherently superior - so in a sense it was in the Declaration