Doctors and teachers handle that, since they have regular contract with children. At least in my state they're required by law to report suspected child abuse.
As a side note, these laws are doing damage to organizations looking for volunteers that I don't think we have fully grasped yet.
People are willing to put a couple of weekends into making a middle school or high school competition happen. They're a lot less willing to do it if they have to go to an FBI station to get fingerprinted or produce a state and federal background check first. And I'm not talking about people with something to hide; I'm talking about people with a completely clean background who just don't want to be bothered.
NZ OP here. Few weeks ago there was a morning checkpoint to inspect everyone's child car seat installation.
Few years back got chased by a cop and ticketed (and scolded) for not restraining kiddo (small town and my clever 2yo somehow learned how to unbuckle themselves (even that houdini clip didn't help)). Warned I could get prosecuted for child neglect if I continue. I suspect the daycare has tipped him off.
Making slippery slope arguments like this is not discussing in good faith. I was providing the context of someone who lives in that geo-political area.
And check that every single one of your federal papers are present and punctual. We'd hate to have someone that's unbecoming to share a full disclosure of themselves to officers on the road.
This is classic playbook for this administration. Is air force one out of date, is replacing it a boondoggle? Yes and yes! Should we take a garish bug ridden pile of expense second hand from foreign sources? No! Does America somewhat subsidize the 'free world' with its military spending and asymmetric dollar? Sure, yeah. Should we fucking tank the economy and ruin our standing with every ally to address it? Probably not!
This pattern is pretty common when you look for it.
Non-Newtonian drives have to prove they work outside the influences of a laboratory, if they work in low earth orbit, they should work anywhere. The Semi-Major Axis Altitude (SMAA) is a great proxy for orbital energy, and if they can make that number go way up, we should all take note, and start looking for new physics.
some measured effects in such experiments happen because of, for example, magnetic interference with the lab equipment. Well, on LEO there still present the Earth magnetic field, unlike in any usable interplanetary space. Interaction with the Earth magnetic field is already used by some satellites for orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer
ERCOT has done a great job of setting up incentives, getting out of the way, and letting markets solve their problems. Working with CAISO and then going to set up batteries in ERCOT was such a breath of fresh air for an old team of mine.
Aside from shutting down some compressor stations that gas companies failed to properly register as essential equipment, ERCOT had almost nothing to do with NG prices.
Gas and power are intertwined but still very separate markets.
Natural gas would have gone even higher had ERCOT not shed load, so if you want to make reductionist statements about complex issues, you could say that ERCOT actually took away from the bonuses of BP gas traders who were long.
They did not do their job to regulate the market. Set aside their failure to check for winterization and the complete failure of demand forecasting or execution of rolling blackouts (that ended up being uncontrolled week long power losses that literally killed people).
They had almost uncapped max wholesale prices for energy during the blackouts. At some point it had reached 10k per megawatthour! Of course companies went bankrupt, and of course BP traders held bonus parties. The taxpayers apart from these they also had to bail out the bankrupt retailers.
If I was one of the last standing gas fueled energy producer / gas distributor with an energy price of $9k/MWhr I would take any gas price to ensure that I have the last available drop of gas.
The sky high energy price and the collapse of gas supply were the fundamental price drivers. The alternative scenario is that the gas market players were just price gouging. Pick what you want.
There’s no power market in America with a cap at $900. Just yesterday, power in New York reached $3k and PJM had spikes to almost $4k.
The cap was raised to $9k to try and incentivize generation because the forward reserve margin was dwindling. ERCOT was the only electric market in the US that was actually growing and old thermal plants were retiring because they couldn’t economically compete with new renewables. Bill Hogan @ Harvard was commissioned to help solve this problem and his team created a new scarcity pricing mechanism along with higher price caps based on the value of lost load. These caps were set by the PUCT and ERCOT had no say in them.
Why are you so focused on caps and not on learning the difference between gas and power markets? You keep trying to simplify very complex systems and issues with a half baked understanding of some basic talking points and minimal understanding of how the markets actually operate.
You're technically right about ERCOT's limited role in gas pricing and the regulatory distinctions. But ERCOT did have some direct failures beyond just being a scapegoat, like ignoring federal winterization warnings, the $16 billion overcharging scandal where they kept prices at maximum for two days after outages mostly ended, and poor crisis communication. Even if PUCT and the Railroad Commission should have mandated better reserves and winterization, ERCOT still mismanaged what was within their control.
I never said ERCOT did not have failures. I'm in the industry and have been massively critical of ERCOT for caving to politics rather than following market rules when they arbitrarily decided to keep the market at the cap. PUCT actually had final say on repricing those hours and chose not to.
ERCOT also didn't have the authority to implement winterization recommendations from the 2011 report outside of the already existing NERC standards. You can blame the PUCT for that or blame FERC for not actually updating those standards until 2023.
However, you still seem to have missed (and demonstrated) my point by referencing Energy Transfer -- they are a midstream company who made 99% of their profits off of NG not power. Conflating their profit with ERCOT's power prices is the problem. People refuse to educate themselves on the difference between gas and power markets, so the TRC and its massively influential O&G lobbyists have made zero changes to the intrastate gas network since the winter storm. Why? Because every layman who has read a few articles and thinks they're an expert is solely focused on ERCOT.
I'm not sure why you're focusing on PUCT having “final say”. This Texas Tribune article shows ERCOT kept market prices too high for nearly two days after outages ended when their own market monitor said they should have reset prices the following day. It was clearly within ERCOT's control to fix.
The entire point of Texas having it's own grid is to ignore Federal guidance. If we were going to follow it, we'd just add more areas of the state to the east & west grids. Which Texas is already connected to, just in limited areas.
That's largely true, but on the flipside at least some of the rush of batteries into Texas to do ancillary services and provide redundancy are a result of greedy capitalists seeing the profits a few hundred MWh can get you in Texas (at taxpayer expense!) and rushing in to get a piece of the pie. So, markets!
Wait, how does it work? If the government is using taxpayer money to buy services… that’s not really a free market solution in the conventional sense, right?
Of course if we have to pretend it is to get Texas to do it… fine I guess.
Na, the utility payers actually pay it, though taxpayers pay for some of the infrastructure and administration, and given to some service providers in the form of tax breaks I think. The circles of that venn diagram are close to an overlap though.
Even if the regime doesn't survive, what's our track record in Iranian regime change like? What are the chances people there swallow their pride and roll over? If anything, Khomeini is probably a moderate compared to a lot of what we could end up with after 'regime change' (lol)
What are the chances that the peaceful, think it through, be reasonable crowd is ready to organize the next regime. Or maybe the hotheads with guns are ready to shoot first aim later.
Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
He is asking a valid question. Experts on the issue also warn that there is no guarantee that what replaces the current regime would be any more amenable.
Yes, but that name refers to a leader from decades ago. There is a similar-named leader today, but people who conflate the two tend not to be well-informed on the topic.
Yeah sorry for the typo - I obviously didn't mean the dude from the 80s. I'm not a scholar but have been paying attention for at least the last few years, so mea culpa.
I guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings.
Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.
The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
I think the post war political movement in America that produced the Martial Plan was exceptional. The situation now in terms of institutions, leadership and doctrine is nothing like that. It is difficult to believe that America of today could help a country in that way. Accountability is too fractured. Profiteering has become a way of life. And fundamentalism is too strong.
I get this a lot from a guy I do trust, and his old man is an Iranian immigrant, but I also recognize my sources are very biased against the regime.
Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.
You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
The only thing this parent got wrong is the dates. Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime would have collapsed if the West had stood up to:
* The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936
* The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938
* The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938
The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power.
Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again.
I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
There is alot of paralllels between the mindset of the populace then and today, especially in this thread that enabled Hitler's confidence. The famous Oxford Union "King and Country Debate" in 1933 declared with 275 for and 153 against that "This House under no circumstances would fight for King and Country". It was stated to have a tremendous impression of Hitler's decision-making when generals pushed back against his aggresive actions, and his bluff was rewarded well.
Well, skip forward in 2023 and here we are again...
Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime never would have existed if the West had not bent Germany over a barrel in 1918 and immediately after.
I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
Not exactly, it was rather that the Treaty of Versailles was painful enough to cause resentment but wasn't harsh enough to cripple Germany. Even so, Weimar Germany managed to stabilize the situation for a decade or so, it's only with the Great Depression that finally broke the Republic's back (and even then, there were all sorts of political shenanigans that could have been manuvered better).
Furthermore, the foreign policy of the Nazis was informed more by their ideological myths than external events. After all, the Nazis admired the Great Imperialist Powers like the British Empire as part of the "Aryan Race". Their enmity was directed at Eastern Europe and the Communists, which had little to do with the enactment of post-war reparations on Germany.
Appreciate the AMA. I'm curious about options for transitioning employees from the temporary (and now at-risk) Uniting for Ukraine parole status to something more stable and long term.
Is H1B lottery just going to be a Ukrainian's best bet? A lot of the advice and documentation seems contradictory, as 'parole' seems in some ways to be more a lack of status than a status itself. Leave the country and apply for some other type of more permanent work visa?
The task is to find another type of work visa, which would require departure at some point but this could be to countries other than Ukraine. For most Ukrainians, the visa options are going to limited to the regular H-1B, the cap-exempt H-1B, and the O-1.
You're right about gamers, but other verticals are looking bad for Intel, too.
The two areas you mention (data center, integrated OEM/mobile) are the two that are most supply chain and business-lead dependent. They center around reliable deliveries of capable products at scale, hardware certifications, IT department training, and organizational bureaucracy that Intel has had captured for a long time.
But!
Data center specifically is getting hit hard from AMD in the x86 world and ARM on the other side. AWS's move to Graviton alone represents a massive dip in Intel market share, and it's not the only game in town.
Apple is continuing to succeed in the professional workspace, and AMD's share of laptop and OEM contracts just keeps going up. Once an IT department or their chosen vendor has retooled to support non-Intel, that toothpaste is not going back into the tube - not fully, at least.
For both of these, AMD's improvement in reliability and delivery at scale will be bearing fruit for the next decade (at Intel's expense), and the mindshare, which gamers and tech sensationalism are indicators for, has already shifted the market away from an Intel-dominated world to a much more competitive one. Intel will have to truly compete in that market. Intel has stayed competitive in a price-to-performance sense by undermining their own bottom line, but that lever only has so far it can be pulled.
So I'm not super bullish on Intel, sensationalism aside. They have a ton of momentum, but will need to make use of it ASAP, and they haven't shown an ability to do that so far.
