I don't know if it was on purpose or not, but I have heard it said more than once that Republican led states are able to greenlight projects faster, are more business-friendly environments, and generally have less red tape compared to Democrat led states. Love it or hate it, but greenlighting projects is a big component in allocating funds.
On the other hand, if they were so much better, shouldn't those "red states" be the ones with the much better economies?
I'm looking at China and what environmental price in the form of polluted land they pay and will be paying for a very long time. The big problems in Western countries also all originated in times with less or no regulation of such things. Just because that's not in the headlines all the time does not mean the problem is any less while the public is not paying attention.
When "it works" and overall success is the only criteria, the Vikings and Mongols surely count as extremely successful. Regulation is meant to take the price into account, in the cases of those two peoples millions of dead and a lot of pillaging and conquering. Regulation is definitely a burden, if you don't have to care about anything but the bottom line it's much easier.
Definitely not true. Right now Red states are openly attacking businesses that don't agree with the prevailing ideology. In Florida, the governor tried to destroy the state's biggest employer. In Texas they have been trying to prosecute out of state businesses. Alabama has more taxes on businesses than California.
I thought it is because they have worst economies and it is always an attempt to prop them up.
The other reason is that while republican party is purposefully trying to destroy economies of blue states, democrats were not trying to purposefully destroy economy of red states.
This might be true, it’s definitely repeated, but it’s generally not the real reason.
The real answer is just politics. Blue states have (generally) healthy economies, with a variety of economic actors and many businesses. Businesses often will shop around various states to build a factory looking for tax cuts. The politician can be associated with new jobs, and the business gets a discount, so it appears to be a win-win (if you ignore the lack of tax revenue). No one needs a tax break to start a business in NYC, LA, nor Silicon Valley, so you don’t hear about all the businesses that open there.
Nationally, policies like the IRA are big boosters for the economy, and democrats are focused on getting it done because it’s good for society and the national priorities. They won’t focus on where the money goes, and will allow the money to go to run down republican states as economic stimulus. But you’ll notice it’s usually capital intense factories that end up in these situations, not white collar jobs.
...thats how the US Constitution works. Congress passes laws (CHIPS Act) and the executive branch is empowered to carry them out - in this case the Secretary of Commerce and Commerce Dept. One can argue whether it stretches the intent of the law, nothing wrong with debate. But as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language.
The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say.
> as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language
Who has standing to sue here? The best I could see is a shareholder lawsuit, but that will take years. Meanwhile, this administration is getting slapped down by courts across the country, including a SCOTUS willing to overturn precedent to curry his favour.
Agree with this, but I think LLM's have been a net positive in helping generate commands? Admittedly, getting working commands is still tough sometimes, and i'm 50/50 on whether ChatGPT saved me time vs reading docs.
The other thing no one wants to say is the technical software/hardware talent in biotech is not as good as broader tech, and the people in charge of these projects are usually coming from a science background first and a technology background second.
A lot of the technology is regulated by FDA requirements, which apply to humans but not animals. Some of these requirements are challenging engineering problems - like how to do certain type of liquid transfers without exposing the contents of a container to the atmosphere, etc. There are lots of tools for doing liquid transfers that mimic what a human would do, but FDA places a different bar when it comes to developing a controlled manufacturing process.
There's also the question of, who writes the rules. Often it's industry experts that are already working on the process, and have incentives like keeping others out or licensing their own IP.
Since the Sun settled onto the Main Sequence after its formation, it has gradually brightened. It is now 30% brighter than it was then.
The brightening is caused by accumulation of helium ash in the Sun's core. This causes the core's equilibrium state to be denser and hotter, with more energy being produced.
In another billion years or so, this will drive the Earth into a runaway greenhouse effect. The oceans will evaporate and the hydrogen will be lost to space. Not long after, the Earth will be a dead planet devoid of any life, even microorganisms. You sometimes see statements about how when the Sun expands into a red giant it will destroy life on Earth, but the Earth will have long been lifeless by that time.
In case others were curious about the term Helium ash:
Ash is the name given to the energetic alpha-particles or helium nuclei produced by fusion reactions in a deuterium-tritium plasma, even though helium bears no physical resemblance to ash from a fire.
It should be noted that deuterium-tritium fusion is not what is happening in the Sun. The primary reaction chain involves proton-proton fusion, which yields deuterium. The deuterium immediately (within seconds) reacts with another proton to make helium-3. Helium-3 eventually fuses with another He-3 to make He-4 and two protons. There are some side chains, but the ultimate overall reaction is four protons + 2 electrons --> 4He + 2 neutrinos.
The way I read it, it isn't a co2 greenhouse, in fact the death stroke is the increased co2 absorption at those temperatures due to weathering of rock. Driving co2 below what plants can survive. Building a parasol at l1 that can be modulated to vary what is passed and what is harvested will be necessary at some point. It could get a couple extra billion years potentially.
Anyone else question why astronomers are so sure about things that happened 5+ billion years ago ? I guess otherwise there’d be a probably or a maybe in every sentence ? But then how do you tell when they really are sure ?
There is always an implied "as far as we know". But astronomy has a couple reasons to be fairly certain about many things. We can see a lot of stars, and because light takes time to travel the further away they are the older the state we are observing. We only see each star as it is right now, but from looking at a lot of them you get a good idea of how they can develop. Like how you can get a good idea of how humans age by just looking at a lot of people of different ages; you don't need to follow each of them for 90 years. The other advantage is that most of it is well understood physics that can be reasoned about and simulated. And then we can compare those simulations to what we are observing across the universe to see if our simulations make sense.
Science is forming a testable hypothesis and then testing it. So you hypothesize "as stars accumulate fusion products their cores get heavier and the rate of fusion increases, making them brighter" and test this both with modeling and looking if this matches the stars we can see. How is that now science?
They build a model of the universe's laws, as simple as they can get it while matching the evidence. They then look at other evidence they hadn't looked at before. It turns out, that quite simple models can predict a lot of different phenomena, which makes us reasonably confident in our assumptions that (1) the universe is governed by simple, fundamental laws; and (2) those laws are similar to our model.
If we make the assumption that our model applies everywhere and at every time (colloquially, that the laws of physics don't change), we can ask our models what happened in the past. Under our assumption, that's probably quite close to what actually happened. This assumption is called the "principle of induction", the "uniformitarian principle", the "cosmological principle", the "Copernican principle", and many other things besides.
The models are so good that when solar neutrinos were not as predicted, it turned out to be because of new physics (neutrino oscillation) not flaws in the solar model.
Six boffins mostly hailing from Singapore-based universities have proven it's possible to interfere with autonomous vehicles by exploiting their reliance on camera-based computer vision and cause them to not recognize road signs.
How do non-camera based systems (lidar etc) get road sign information? I would expect with cameras...?
With cameras alone it seems pretty easy to trick them into dismissing road signs as nonexistent.. I think Lidar alone should be telling you there is a sign, so your camera is faulty or someone is putting up blank signs.
Lidar as I was told to use it would be in conjunction with a database of way points like signs, so the trouble would be knowing if the sign was updated.
My car doesn't seem to have any trouble reading temporary construction speed limit signs and the like. And it has lidar. This seems to be a solved problem.
reply