you have to get out of tech by 35. It's not because young people are more savvy of the latest trends, it's because experience is basically worthless because tech moves so fast. In 5 years your knowledge is out of date unless you've been keeping up with it on your own time, and good luck doing that working 60-70 hours a week.

So you either move into some kind of management or customer service role or you get out of tech. That works when the economy is growing like gangbusters because there's enough spots for you, but when the economy is contracting (they way all are because of trickle down economics + massive amounts of automation) it breaks down.

and a democratized workplace if you're going to do something like this. I'm sure many here on /. (which leans a bit conservative) don't agree with these protestors, but think a little ahead to a time if/when there *is* something you agree with.

Having a say in how the company you work for is run is something we should all desire, at least if you don't believe in Divine Command Theory.

Their goal was to buy up a ton of companies and then sell them all in one big package for a huge profit. We had any sort of antitrust law enforcement that wouldn't even be possible. When interest rates went up that was the basically the Doom of it. Nobody was going to get the cash to buy out all their recent acquisitions. As a result tons of games have gone unfinished in a whole bunch of people lost their jobs and whole studios are basically dead. Entire franchises are basically over.

You really need to stop these destructive private equity buying sprees. They're terrible for everyone but a handful of Wall Street ghouls

To drive desalinization plants and solve the water crisis in the Southwest. The problem is that'll cost a whole bunch of money for the extra infrastructure needed to get the power where it needs to be. And it's surprisingly hard to get that money because so much of California's money needs to go to the Southern States to keep them barely functional

Commerce Clause. It's been that way for over a century. It's why the TVA could exist. We stopped pretending states were little fiefdoms in the late 1800s. The interconnected nature of them in a modern economy ("modern" here meaning anything after the Industrial Revolution) triggers the Commerce Clause and in turn gives them the authority needed.

and it's the estimated time to build the entire plant. For solar you don't have to worry about melt downs so there's a hell of a lot less regulation. You'd be looking a a few weeks to a month to make sure nobody did something stupid, and most of that is waiting on inspectors which the $7b is I believe meant to help address (though that funding might be coming from a different pot)

then it's good. Would I prefer the government just build it out themselves? Sure, but I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this subsidy would shit kittens if we did that.

you need to build a solar farm. The teleco subsidies are pretty much handed out w/o strings attached but if you tried to just sign up for this one you'd find yourself in jail in about 6 years when they caught up with you and prosecuted you for fraud.

at best. Sometimes worse. Hertz got out of EVs and besides unpredictable and severe depreciation maintenance was a big factor. That could just be a Tesla thing, since they were all Teslas, but by all accounts the current crop of EVs from other manufactures are still iffy. That's not a surprise, it's a brand new platform.

Also, oil changes are every 6000 miles and have been for ages. If you're low mileage you can go a whole year. I work from home and put very little mileage on my car, so I do the change with full synth once a year for about $100 bucks. but even worse case you're looking at an extra $300-$500 a year. Not cheap, but it wasn't enough to make Hertz keep the Teslas.

And yeah, people are going to take away our gas buggies. There's multiple laws on the books right now to phase them out in 6-10 years. Personally I'd rather have walkable cities and public transportation. An realistically those laws will just get pushed back. But they're getting pushed back because EVs are still too expensive for regular folk to afford. China has affordable EVs... for China. But that's more a quirk of exchange rates and their ability to use borderline slave labor. Even without the tariffs it just doesn't translate here.

And we've got a few major issues with EVs that aren't being addressed. Higher weight means they burn through tires (and put a ton of extra tire particulate into the air), an EV battery fire is a nightmare and replacing an EV or even Plug-In-Hybrid battery is fraught with risk. I've seen EVs where the battery is more than the car...

On the positive end EVs really do reduce our dependency on foreign oil. But as it stands I spend about 2 months out of the year working for my car instead of myself, and I drive an old car very few miles and own it outright. It's looking more and more like an EV is going to push that to 3 months, and I make good money.

All's that to say I don't think EVs are a solution to our transportation woes.

Coupled with the fact that they continuously buy out any potential competition means that they need to be and should be subject to additional regulation above and beyond what a normal company would be subject to. This is double for Europe and any other Nation outside the United states. It's not for example as if Europe had any choice or save in Facebook buying out multiple potential competitors as they started to gain market share with younger users. Those decisions were made on us soil by us judges.

Ideally Facebook should be broken up and it's very acquisitions turned into private companies and they should no longer be allowed to buy out potential competitors. But if we're not going to take even that basic step we shouldn't be surprised Europe isn't going to stand by like idiots

it won't meet our safety requirements (e.g. it can't survive even a fender bender with an SUV, at least not w/o pushing the whole assembly up into your guts).

So by the time BYD builds a vehicle that a) meets our safety requirements, b) has the acceleration and performance to compete with Gas cars and c) covers the cost of shipping *and* the tariff it's not worth it.

The reason they're targeting Europe is that it's not a wasteland of SUV hell. I think shipping might be easier too, but do not quote me on that.

That said, I'm all for protecting local industry with tariffs here. That $13k car won't be $13k very long if our entire auto industry shuts down. And honestly I'd rather have walkable cities and public transit anyway.

unless we see *massive* changes in how our species is organized. i.e. ending war. That's because the Auto Industry is kept around in case we need their manufacturing capacity to build tanks and shit. That's why our ruling class didn't just move all the factories overseas. You can't just build that kind of manufacturing overnight, so if a real war breaks out we need them to build the stuff that'll fight in the second wave.

Now the question is if you think that's good or bad. Most people will _say_ it's bad, but ending it means moving from a competitive society into a cooperative one.

And as soon as you say that you've lost 90% of Americans. Because the idea that competition solves all problems is rooted further in our society than mom & apple pie.

For US citizens no. But this isn't a matter of a US citizen this is a foreign corporation so anything that's not in a treaty is fair game. If however tick tock was owned by a US citizen with Chinese investors they wouldn't be able to do this. But the entire point of the law is the fourth China to divest and sell it to a US citizen.

I won't, but I also won't be forced to evacuate my city because the CEO who lives 500 miles away wanted a new yacht this quarter.

Not unless you fix the social problems with it. It's too expensive to build which results in cost overruns that are paid for by the taxpayer. That in itself is fine, but sooner or later we hand anything built by the taxpayer to private industry to profit from, and they cut corners.

I don't Trust guys like Elon Musk with nuclear power plants, and that's exactly the kind of dodgy businessman who'd be attracted to a money losing proposition like nuclear.

The government can do unprofitable things that benefit society. Corporations cannot. That's what everybody's worried about, and fans of nuclear power just deflect, deflect, deflect whenever it's brought up.

You need to either figure out how to stop privatizing things that shouldn't be privatized or create a nuclear reactor that's safe to run w/o *any* maintenance. I don't think you want to do the latter and I don't think you _can_ do the former.