We can do more than one thing at a time. A government is composed of multiple people after all.

In terms of government pending, there's priorities but also diminishing returns. For example, you could try cutting everything except your top 3 items. But those top 3 items aren't necessarily going to get done faster or better proportional to massive amount spent. NASA's budget is about a third of a percent of the US federal budget. It's small potatoes, and yields a fair bit in return for science and education. We could 10X it and it would still be a smaller slice than it was in the 1960. (some where around 4%). And I'm not sure we're get 10X more science or education out of it. At 4% you do get quite a bit of political clout, but the US is not currently looking for more. (we've been burning it with or Presidential choices in the last 20th and early 21st century)

You likely have every right to operate your private business that way. Assuming you own it or the board approved the policy. It's a tough way to go if you're trying to hire though. Getting too specific really narrows the talent pool you can choose from.

They can also express those concerns in an overt way that communicates to their coworkers what this is about and how they feel about it, even if it disturbs the office. Because we live in a free country and not everyone has to be a nice door mat. But also there is no protection from retaliation, so they lost their job and they aren't going to get a court to undo that.

I'd rather do this kind of work in assembler. Especially shuffling code around a memory with "holes" in it. A general purpose compiler is of limited use for most control applications. A ladder logic compiler/interpreter might be worth it for this old space probe. But a good linker, that's worth its weight in gold when your memory map is swiss cheese.

Yes. If I get a smart meter and switched to time-of-use plan then I can buy power over night for cheaper than I pay now. But power during the day is much more expensive.

For the most part, I'm already doing what you suggest. I've mostly stopped sending power to the grid and I'm running off my batteries through most of the night. The one factor is if I could charge from the grid at night then I'd save a little more money. It's not a lot of money, a dollar and some change a day.

The important thing is that it's not entirely my choice which plan I'm on. PG&E has to approve everything. They know I have a battery now. And from what I understand of their policies they'll be switching me to time of use (TOU) as a mandatory policy. But I don't actually know because nobody there tells me much, it takes weeks to get them to do anything.

I kind of gave up the dream of selling my spare solar power back to PG&E. They don't really pay me much under Net Energy Metering and Net Surplus Compensation (NSC). They're billing residential customers around 40-50 cents per kWh but they only pay a whole sale rate of a 4.256 cents.
I still do net metering to offset my usage. But the idea that I'm going to some how break even with these guys isn't possible anymore, not after they jacked rates so much in the last several years.
I did end up getting a whole house battery, mostly as a backup. The math doesn't work out where it's going to save money in my situation. While the utility bill is lower with a battery than without. The amount doesn't actually cover the cost of the battery for the life of the battery. As for the "life" of a battery, I'm going by the manufacturer's 12 year warranty.

If that's the standard then dairy products wouldn't be available in parts of the US. Stuff is subsidized and regulated up the wazoo because people at the time felt it was a good idea to feed kids a regular supply of protein and calcium. (this was before we mandated feeding them corn syrup)

At some point people gotta make money. EU has every right to determined how businesses make money from EU citizens. But cutting off every avenue is probably going to backfire, perhaps even isolate Europe's Internet. (I don't know for sure, I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I'm just putting it out there as a thought)

These guys are super arrogant. It's almost like executives know they will be OK financially, even if they run their company into the ground.

Plus government bail out loans with incredibly generous rates for unsecured debt. Maybe this time the ones running the auto companies won't bother paying back the loans and pivot their wealth some place else.

Yes. It is possible to use limited resources in an unsustainable way. If technology doesn't replace the resource with an alternative then a future generation has to do without, with a potentially disastrous reduction in the standard of living.

We're too small for readers to overwhelm a site. And we're definitely less relevant than Taylor Swift.

that leaves for a lot of multiverses.

"That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common."
-- Aristotle

It takes an advanced culture and individual maturity to counter-act basic human nature that Aristotle identified and many have discussed through the centuries. So while you're goofing off with reactionary politics, can you stand back and let the big girls and boys take care of the serious problems?

Z80 is turing complete. And 64k bytes is enough to count all the atoms in the visible universe.

Management is here 6 days a week generating mountains of paperwork. Why can't you be more productive like them?