That remains to be seen. At heart is the question of the "algorithm" by which the publisher decides what to publish. This is similar to subliminal messaging in the sense that viewers aren't aware of the speech they've just heard (going from what you said, that the speech is editorial decision about what to show). But it's different in that with subliminal messaging an objective third party can see what the speech was, but with the "algorithm" no one can see what it was.

Subliminal messaging was ruled NOT to be protected by First Amendment in a Judas Priest case in 1988, but that overruled in 1990. The overruling however (1) sanctioned CBS for failing to disclose the masters, which is closely analogous to ByteDance failing to disclose its algorithms, (2) the overruling was because they didn't prove the subliminal was intentional and didn't prove the subliminal messages were the case of harm, both points on which I think there's clear paths to distinguish TikTok from CBS.

So: I agree it does go to the heart of the First Amendment, but the answer is by no means clear cut.

Oh noes politicians might have the power to prevent people from profiting from polluting our nation and planet unnecessarily, HOW TERRIBLE.

They ruled that how he was doing it was unconstitutional, not doing it at all. Got any facts to work with, or only things you don't understand and therefore shouldn't be pointing around?

Except that wasn't an example of overreach. Seasonal wetlands are still wetlands. Polluting them still affects both aquifers and the migratory waterfowl which use them.

Got any actual examples, not just more shitting on everything you don't care about, like other people?

Nobody with a brain believes in that shit anyway. How many examples do you want of the government shutting down businesses on bullshit pretexts? Or propping them up?

"TikTok owner ByteDance would prefer shutting down its loss-making app rather than sell it"

Yes, that's because its purpose is not profit, as it's a PsyOp. If the goal were profit, they would prefer to sell it. If they sell it, there is a risk that documents which prove its purpose will be transferred, and blow the whole operation even worse than being shut down.

"It's probably because you're asserting that the mod down process validates your "facts"."

If you want to claim what I'm saying isn't factual, the onus is on you to provide some counter evidence, or at minimum, counter arguments. When people mod down an opinion because they don't agree with it they have surrendered the point.

I am happy to pay taxes to build low-carbon infrastructure. Earlier this year my old car was totaled; I didn't buy an expensive new fully EV, but bought a relatively cheap used plug-in hybrid after calculating that it would let me drive 70% on electrons.

The EV community is well aware of, and quite grumpy about, the proliferation of high-end EV's in the US. Many more affordable electric vehicles exist elsewhere that are not sold in the US -- Chinese ones, yes, but also smaller models that are not sold in the US because Detroit and importers perceive (wrongly, in my opinion) that American buyers only want large expensive models. But the average purchase price of a new car in the US is to my mind ludicrously high -- around $47K. This is higher than a Model 3, for instance. So the most common EV option is actually cheaper than the average purchase price of a new car.

The cost of climate mitigation will necessarily be borne by people who won't benefit as much -- wealthy people (who tend to live in cooler climates) need to stop burning fossil fuels so that poorer people (who tend to live in warmer climates nearer the Equator) don't suffer so much from global heating. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay the cost to stop injuring the poor. The impact of unmitigated climate change on the global poor is going to be staggeringly bad; there is no reasonable path that doesn't involve mitigating it.

I think your last assertion may be true when comparing the American wealthy to the middle class, but not true when comparing the middle class to the working poor. The wealthiest people don't have fixed working hours while the middle class is usually doing a 9-5. But the working poor (who more often work shifts that are not M-F 9-5) have access to off-peak times; they are not "getting home at 6pm, then drawing 3kW for their stove and another 3kW for their car" as much as the 9-5ers in the middle class.

Time-of-day pricing lowers the cost of generation for everyone by better aligning supply with demand, reducing the amount of power that has to come from (expensive and inefficient) peaker plants.

The bigger issue is the availability of charging infrastructure in places where poorer people live, like apartments. I live in an apartment and have to charge my PHEV at work, paying 50% more per kWh than I would pay at home (and that's without time-of-day adjustments).

It very much had the feeling of "oh noe teh EW".

he's in favor of anticompetitive behavior at the expense of customers for some sick reason, probably cognitive dissonance.

I think some people fundamentally support this sort of thing because they believe that one day eith enough hard work, they'' get to be the ones raking in heaps cash by screwing over people like they are now.

Or even abuse it seems.

That's the exact opposite of how it actually works. Fertility rates tend to be highest among socioeconomically challenged groups, and lowest among high earning groups.

Indeed. QEMM was something of a hero in that department, but even memmaker was enormously helpful...

Every major shift WAS different from the one before.

What's DOUBLY different about this time is that this time we are not moving from skill to skill, we are moving from unskilled to something.

I truly despise the idea that there are no unskilled jobs because it is not just false, it's a counterproductive argument. All of us who have worked a variety of jobs know that some jobs require both talent and education, and others require mostly just a pulse and respiration. But people who work both kinds of jobs have essentially the same needs.

Sometimes it is, but as always, "it depends". It's always aluminum for aircraft and overhead cables since it has superior resistivity per unit weight. For buried cables it's a tradeoff, but as always it comes down to money. As the price of copper goes up, the tradeoff tips towards aluminium.

Your comment makes no sense. That does matter if you wish to be understood.