These researchers certainly appear to be twisting the definition of a "subsidy" beyond rationality in order to push an anti-capitalist class-warfare perspective:

This doesn't pass my sniff test for objective academic analysis, but apparently this is what gets published in the 4th-ranked environmental sciences journal these days.

That's how it is in my city, too. It works pretty well and things run fairly smoothly. Our city has 2/3 of the population of Switzerland, and is barely in the top 5 biggest cities in the USA. There is a scaling problem here.

I just read the entire opinion. Kavanaugh's concurrence does not say ANY of the things you claim it does. There is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes by 12:01AM on November 4th. In fact, there is nothing in there about precedent requiring the counting of all votes immediately after the election at all. I'm not sure what you were reading, or how you could possibly misread his concurrence to say anything like that. Read it. It's long, but it does exactly what the GP says it does: it argues that the rather complex election system the Wisconsin legislature implemented should not be involuntarily modified by the Federal Courts in the few days immediately preceding this election. It directly addresses the opposing arguments from the dissenting justices, analyzing why the facts do not support the claims of "disenfranchisement" here, and applying the long-standing precedent on judicial interference in legislatively created election laws. Even if you favor the other side's preferred outcome, it's hard to argue against many of the points he makes on this.

I don't do chess with pigeons, and especially not for free.

The article just summarizes another article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea) which actually reports the IEA findings. It turns out that solar is only cheaper if you factor in the special government programs which give super-favorable below-market financing to utilities to build solar, and shift default risk to the taxpayers:

"This shift is the result of new analysis carried out by the WEO team, looking at the average 'cost of capital' for developers looking to build new generating capacity. Previously the IEA assumed a range of 7-8% for all technologies, varying according to each country’s stage of development. Now, the IEA has reviewed the evidence internationally and finds that for solar, the cost of capital is much lower, at 2.6-5.0% in Europe and the US, 4.4-5.5% in China and 8.8-10.0% in India, largely as a result of policies designed to reduce the risk of renewable investments."

Solar remains substantially more expensive than other technologies. Some governments subsidize it enough to make it competitive, and this analysis relies on that.

Also, this 20-factor test is pretty famous (or infamous) in employment law and has been analyzed to death in the caselaw. If you've done any reading at all on this issue, you would have run across it.

Seriously? Are so so lazy you can't even google it? This stuff isn't secret. Jesus, man. https://dsjcpa.com/the-irs-20-...

There are 20 factors under federal law. Applying those 20 factors to the Uber business model clearly results in the conclusion that their drivers are valid independent contractors. Why? Because they carefully designed their business model to comply with the existing rules. They went well out of their way to ensure compliance. California is most definitely moving the goalposts here. Uber built its business in full compliance with the law, and now they want to change the law specifically to destroy their business model. This is problematic. This ballot proposition preserves the prior status quo.

Light only goes 186 miles per millisecond, so the latency of drones is an unavoidable fact of physics. Having pilots located in the combat region can keep latency down to workable levels, but US-based pilots are always going to have too much round-trip signal delay to manually trigger a gun.

Not sure why this is modded up - it's incorrect. First, state laws do not have any "greater leeway" than federal laws regarding speech restrictions. The First Amendment is "incorporated" upon the states, which means it is applied and analyzed the same way at all levels of government - local, state, or federal. If anything, some states are more restricted in their ability to police speech since they are additionally subject to their own state constitutions, many of which contain speech protection provisions which have been interpreted differently than the federal Constitution. Since both the federal and state constitutions apply to states (but only the federal Constitution applies to the federal government), states are left with the most-restrictive combination of both sets of interpretations. Second, "hate speech" does not fall within the established definition of obscenity, unless the specific statement in question actually does meet all the criteria for obscenity - in which case it's merely coincidental that the statement also happens to be "hate speech" according to someone's definition, in addition to meeting the criteria for obscenity. There isn't another argument to be made on this. This has been litigated to hell and back - it's not a new issue or a new set of questions. "Hate speech" is not a legally-defined term in American constitutional jurisprudence, except that several cases have specifically invalidated "hate speech" legislation by drawing the clear distinction between obscenity and "hate speech", usually pointing out that the latter lacks a clear definition and is inherently meaning-based, while determinations of obscenity are based on more superficial characteristics of the presentation rather than its underlying message (indeed, the presence of an actual underlying message renders the content non-obscene even if the same material would be obscene if it lacked a real message). TL;DR: Hate speech is free speech in the United States. This ain't a new issue, and it ain't an open question.

They are actively cracking down on political speech by force. Your ideas of authoritarianism are a bit weird.

The linked article claims that the study shows that political beliefs are subject to this effect. The actual study (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5762/854) says no such thing. It relates only to music, and refers to a "cultural market". Politics are influenced by reason, philosophy, faith, and numerous other factors which are not involved in the purely aesthetic phenomenon of musical preference. Neither the study nor the article provide any basis to analogize the results of this experiment beyond artistic preference, and specifically fail to provide any valid basis to conclude that the results are applicable in politics. Perhaps they are - but this study doesn't say so. The article seems to bring politics into play just because it makes a better headline.

Just to pile on the problems with this scientifically illiterate summary and article: The author completely misunderstands the nature of negative-resistance devices, and confuses herself into thinking this is more counter-intuitive than it really is. "[I]ncreasing the voltage can cause the current to decrease instead. This basically means that pushing harder on the electric charges actually slows them down." This misstatement swaps the dependent and independent variables, and does not reflect the actual phenomenon at all. Current is the independent variable with negative resistance devices, and the voltage drop across them is the dependent variable. Pushing more current through a negative resistance makes the voltage across it go down. This makes a lot of sense and is quite predictable when it comes to most negative resistance devices. The higher the current flow, the more easily current can flow, usually due to an increase in the abundance of charge carriers. Physics!

Hey, I wonder if someone who actually understood what they were reading could redo this summary so humans can interpret it? Maybe somebody with a tiny bit of technical background, who knows even generally what these guys are up to. That would be nice.