Claiming there is a secret crime wave that is going in NY is pretty audacious in my book.

I can't find anything to that effect.

OK... so what does that have to do with bail reform?

which page? https://driveelectric.gov/file...

Where is the mandate for selling EVs? The only thing that is changed is the regulation regarding emissions. Hydrogen is an option and it's part of the strategy.

Ironic considering that oil is subsidized and that infrastructure for gasoline was subsidized too.

Good news, they have something that works today. This regulation is for machine of tomorrow.

Everyone is building out their RE extraction because of China. You do realize that REs are used for semiconductor manufacturing, right? Even if we suddenly stopped needing neodymium, we would still need REs.

The pollution with regard to REs is localized, not global. Besides, oil extraction is far more harmful to the environment but you seem to have no problem with it.

Merely driving an ICE car for a meager six months is the same amount of pollution generated by producing an entire EV. That doesn't even include the pollution generated by producing the car or the pollution generated by oil extraction.

you missed the most important part:

And here you are trying to cut funding for education.

If you aren't even willing to support an audacious claim then there is no purpose in bothering with that the claim.

That's not a public declaration of intent, it's a one-off which is the desecration of the DA.

This one? https://apnews.com/article/pol...
I read that "One of the people in the vehicle had been arrested on a gun charge in April 2023" but haven't turned up anything indicating they were the awaiting trial much less the shooter. If you have a more informative source then please share.

Where does it say that? Who has even suggested such a thing? This sounds like a paranoid fantasy.

Incentive programs are nothing new and neither is environmental regulation. I don't understand why you think this is especially egregious.

Not being economical is very different from not being possible.

The "global supply" is not an absolute. What the article talks about is the rate at which it can be extracted and refined versus demand. However, this analysis is based on the idea that no more RE extraction/refinement capacity is going to be added by 2030.

Which court case regarding mining? Are these even things that high level executives are aware of?

In some parts of it, yes but for large installations there are options like vanadium redox flow batteries. See also: https://www.energy.gov/sites/d...

That was only an extract. A full response is here. People took his claims very seriously and thoroughly debunked his claims about affirmative action.

I could go on with the second amendment debate but honestly, it's like the most boring topic, so I'm going to skip it. If you desire to believe you have prevailed, feel free.

OK, that's fair.

Another claim without evidence. Disappointing but not surprising.

Violent crimes? Should I bring up the sheriffs who have stated they will not enforce gun laws?

Another claim without evidence. Yes, there was an article that cited the FBI stats being off but not both.

Nobody is being stopped from driving diesel trucks on "zero emissions corridors". It's literally just a name to declare "there are EV charging stations along this highway."

A true open market allows the sale of absolutely anything which includes nuclear weapons, slaves, children, stolen goods, et cetera. As a result, the reality of an open market is that there are restrictions what may be sold. The fewer restrictions, the higher the "openness" but to say any restriction results in a command market is pure sophistry. Your claim is disingenuous.

You obviously don't know about solid-state batteries.

I did, it doesn't mention motors or REs. Perhaps you should reread it: https://www.businessinsider.co...

Quite the opposite because it's part of what's driving the development. Supply and demand only works when there is need.

Existence, yes. Discovery, no. Check the dates.

No because It doesn't matter how heavy your batteries are in grid-scale storage. After lithium-ion batteries lose too much capacity to be useful in EVs, they are harvested for use in things like grid-scale storage until they are completely useless at which time they are recycled.

Then by all means, call for more sanctions on China to force them to use a more eco-friendly refinement process.

The rebuttal is to the only scientific study that the article mentions. How can I post a rebuttal to "I said it and therefore it is true"? Like I keep telling you, to make a convincing argument you need to back it up with science. The article did not back up their assertions. A suppose a proper rebuttal to their baseless claims would be "Naw-aww!"

Every other part of your response is "I know it's true and I'm not going to bother backing up my claim, so too bad." I'm not bother with that garbage when I clearly laid out what is needed to build a strong case.

I never claimed it did. I only said they were used in the deadliest (most fatalities) mass shootings. I never claimed anything more.

Without a proper scientific study on this precise use case, it is not a certainty if they would kill more or fewer people. You can make all the specious arguments you want but that's no substitute for science.

In that case, the editorial is just that, unfounded assertions and therefore has lacks any merit.

You're just making assumptions. Get the data behind the percentages and you may have a leg to stand on.

That's not empirical data. Sorry, you need actual data to back up your claim.

There are serious flaw in your comparison. Here are way to more objectively compare them:
* comparing past US outcomes to present US outcomes (comparing global standing is irrelevant because other nations have changed too)
* identify differences in the expense of expenditures made. (perhaps the cost of books being 100x the cost is an issue)
* identify external factors like the economic status of parents and how that impacts their interactions with their children.

However, this doesn't identify administration as being excessive. To do that you need to do the same analysis on many nations to isolate the optimal size for an administration.

You have a hypothesis that administration size is the problem but you have not accounted for the difference between the past and present. To compare the results of two different time periods without a deep investigation of the impacts of the environment on student outcomes is negligent at best and pure sophistry at worse.

Claim all you like and hell, maybe everyone is dumb but you but the stats are the stats. The semi-automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for high fatality mass shootings.

The rebuttal focused on the only research cited. That means the wide ranging assertions in the editorial were just that, mere assertions without evidence.

No, not it is not because you are comparing percentage of increase ("growth"). Look at the graph again.
For example, if you have one administrator and 1000 teachers then you add one administrator and 100 teachers then you get
* a 100% increase in administrators
* a 10% increase in teachers
The increase in the percentage of administrators is 10 times greater than the percentage of added teachers.
So, despite hiring 100 times more teachers than administrators, the percentage of administrators added still 10x greater than the percentage of teachers added.

Are you sure you are not one of the bad student outcomes? ;)

What evidence do you have that it's "relatively small number of wealthy communities" and not "all the non-poor communities"?

To heed them you need to actually understand what is excessive and what is necessary. Thus far there have only been assertions and easily deceptive stats. I'm not saying you're wrong but you are sorely lacking in solid evidence of misconduct.

OK, I'll answer working under that premise but that still has limitations to a select number of activities,

I never said it was. My intent was to explain that strict limitations could be placed on people who are not part of a well regulated militia. One reason for this ironically is because it is "necessary to the security of a free State" to not have heavily armed halfwits going around a shooting people.

It can't just be any militia, it has to be a well regulated militia. However, to you claim, it's actually able-bodied males age 17 through 44 inclusively (it was amended) but the second part is interesting.
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

An unorganized militia does not sound well regulated. However, it does mean that you get the boot at age 45. Do note that it is a relatively new law that was passed in 1916 and has been amended several times.

Only under US military rules of engagement. Under tyrannical rule the rules of engagement go out the window and they could level towns that they suspected of harboring insurrectionists then use infrared to take down every fleeing human. They could even nuke places that are fomenting rebellion to "make an example" of them. Your little guns cannot hold a candle to a tyrant that controls even a small fraction of the might of the US military.

Yes, DAs are not judges. The judges made the choice and were not prevented from requiring bail.

Do you have any numbers on downgrading of charges or unreported crimes to back up this claim or is this a conspiracy theory? Right now all I'm reading from you is "trust me, it's true." It could be true but without evidence to support it then I see no reason to believe you.

Yes, in the FBI database, not the NY one.

Nobody is required to do anything. The only thing it does do is prohibit certain types of items from being sold. This is basic market regulation.

Your interpretation is backwards. Zero emissions corridors enable zero emissions vehicles to use those routes (because they have lined with chargers as result of this program) not because they are exclusive to emissions vehicles. If you can find any evidence to the contrary then post it.

It wouldn't require it but that could facilitate it. It would be wise to not put one's eggs in one basket and thus plan many different routes and then only build on the ones that are quickly obtained. Also, I would point out that we also now possess the ability to dig large tunnels quickly which opens up a lot of new possible train routes.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's physically possible to build the machines and that it's (currently) an economic problem.

That has nothing to do with "ethical mining" REs, they are worried there isn't cheaply accessible lithium. However, lithium-ion is not the only battery chemistry being developed that targets BEVs. I would also point out that after these statements were made that two exceptionally large deposits of lithium were found in the US.
Scientists discover enormous goldmine of lithium in U.S.: ‘This is a very, very significant deposit’
Potentially the world's largest lithium deposit has been found in a US volcano

The CCP is free to turn China into a wasteland and we can't stop them so long as it's localized in China.

Lethality is context dependent. For a one-on-one encounter, a shotgun is going to be more lethal. However, mass shooting are different. Lethality increases with a higher rate of fire and increased tissue damage caused. The ability for a single round to hit multiple targets further increases lethality.

I'm not saying one is more lethal than the other, I'm saying there are generally a greater number of fatalities in mass shooting where a semi-automatic rifle is used.

The editorial was authored Betsy McCaughey and the only research referenced in it was by UCLA professor Richard Sander. The rebuttal is to the referenced research. If this is insufficient then Betsy McCaughey needs to cite some more research.

You have yet to establish that it is in fact excessive. The only thing that is clear is that it's higher than it has been in the past. However, you are explicitly comparing performance of US student against those of other nations, not performance in the US student versus prior US students. It could simply be that little has changed and other nations have improved.

Simple percentages are meaningless. If you start out with one person and then higher a second person then it's a 100% increase. Your claim is that too much funding is going into administration but you have not compared administrative funding to that of other nations.

No, I'm not assuming it i waste. You have taken the position that it is waste without establishing it as being true.

You have yet to establish what is causing the difference in student outcome.

There is significant reason. Better funded schools have better student outcomes.

You are mislabeling me as I merely insist you back up your arguments with more than "trust me".

Your single-minded insistence that it's an administrative funding problem combined with an unwillingness to investigate difference between school systems in the US and abroad tells me otherwise.

Do not lump everyone in with your own actions.

Doesn't matter because the constitutional originalist PoV is based on the intent of right when it was written. The intent absolutely and irrevocably to defend from an invading army which is why militias are explicitly mentioned. Anything else is not an constitutional originalist interpretation.

True, you never know when an invading force is going to arrive but you can.

No. You have no right to fire it if you are not defending yourself against an invading force. It is militias that are well regulated, not the general public. Given the threat was perceived to be a federal force, It is up to states to determine what constitutes a militia.

Not the intent of the right granted by the founders and thus not a constitutional originalist interpretation.

I'm perfectly aware of this and that means that the so-called constitutional originalists are full of shit because this does not follow the intent of the founding fathers when it was written. So yeah, everyone relying on constitutional originalism to justify the large scale deployment of unfettered firearms can shove it.

Considering an federal invading force would easily take out targets using drone strikes that an armed resistance would never see coming, it's absolutely antiquated. You might as well be ants against a kid with a magnifying glass. I've heard excuses for this but none of them can actually dispute their own impotence against drone strikes.

I'm certain it's happened in a few cases but recall it's been amended several times to address the unforeseen circumstances that inevitably would arise from such a large change.

That's only the FBI. You do know that NY has it's own crime reporting system, right?

Indeed, they are encouraging development to transition to BEVs but it's not a mandate. The next step is most likely hybrid EVs which could take advantage of charging stations. That said, the free market can go another direction entirely if it finds something cheaper.

It's not a mandate to make anything, it's regulation which creates a market force. This is literally how regulation works.

Truck buyers are not being forced to buy the new trucks. They could literally never buy another truck again and there's nothing to stop them but themselves.

Not through dictate but through financial incentive.

Since it's literally possible to build these machines, economics is the only issue which left to the free market decide.

This government regulation absolutely is a market force because the government is not dictating which goods people buy or even the prices of them. What they are doing is limiting what is allowed to be sold on the free market. You might as well rage at the fact that they won't allow the sale of leaded gasoline.

This is entirely possible because projected timelines don't always align with scientific/engineering progress. If they didn't make adjustments then it would be a dictate.

If the price is right, yep.

You misunderstood my comment. I was talking about the combined use of trains and short haul trucks. Effectively, trucks taking stuff to and from train yards and trains doing to majority of transport. The energy expenditures are more centralized as the trains do the most work instead of a fully decentralized fleet of trucks.

According to who/what?

They being turned into wastelands in order to do the extraction cheaper. Not even like a lot cheaper, only slightly cheaper. However, the mining of REs (which aren't actually all that rare) has radically expanded since 2010 when China decided to use REs to coerce Japan.

That is a determination best made by people that are not yourself.

I did some digging: https://constitution.congress....
I'm now inclined to agree this was the original intent but only in the context of defense of one's self and the state from the threat of an invading army. This right was not granted for any other purpose which means restrictions can be placed on ownership and that states can restrict them in any other context. To that end, yes, people are entitled to due process for their guns.

That said, states are allowed to restrict firearm access as they see fit so long as they don't run afoul of your right to attempt to fend off an invader.

For example a GPS tracked lockout mechanism that alerts police when it's removed or goes to an unusual location could be required to be kept on the gun at all times except in the event of an emergency. There is also no right to shoot firearms in times of peace which means it could easily be made illegal to fire a firearm. Furthermore, there is no right to a specific type of firearm, only that you be allowed to be armed.

Honestly, it's a highly antiquated amendment that has been given far more power than it is due by so-called constitutional originalists,

Actually, judges are allowed to impose bail in various circumstances which includes serial offenders.

And yet newspapers aren't talking about this supposed crimewave that has taken hold in NY. This has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory because everyone is in on it.

EVs to meet the emissions regulations, yes. Nothing was said about long haul trucks.

Yes, the solution is undefined because the free market will settle on a cost optimized solution. The free market is very good at cost optimization.

Market pressures don't work overnight. This lays out a path forward with fewer emissions from heavy trucks.

Truck manufacturers aren't voluntarily going out of business so they improve efficiency.

Which is why I specifically called it a market force because that's what it is.

Then the price of existing capacity will increase until competition adds more capacity. Basic free market stuff.

Actually, it's quite the opposite since the energy expenditures are more centralized.

Are you kidding me? Battery manufacturing plants are popping up everywhere while battery capacity continues to increase.

Ethically managed? Cobalt has been eliminated from modern chemistries. What conflict mineral are you talking about?

Trucks do exist and that's what this market force is acting upon. Failing to understand how scientific progress and the free market interact is your own issue.

No, it's not. I made a statement and you simply misunderstood it's meaning.

Again, you are making assertions without supporting them.

No. I cannot simply take your answers as gospel. This is why we have science.

I've looked into this study and it has some issues. Lack of peer-review and the field of study is limited strictly to law students.
A rebuttal found that eliminating affirmative action reduces the number of black lawyers by close to 12.7 percent, rather than increasing it by Sander’s 7.9 percent. Obviously more investigation is needed and peer-review is a must.

So you acknowledge that funding disparity is resulting in worse outcomes for poorer communities. This supports the idea that schools in poorer communities should receive additional funding if you want better outcomes.

You claim that administrative spending is excessive but you have failed to contrast it with administrative spending in other nations.

You acknowledge, schools that are getting more funding have superior results. This raises the question of what the spending per capita is in failing areas versus others and how that compares to other nations. You have also failed to consider other government services that are not connected to school spending. For all you know, the problem could be entirely linked to behavioral issues driven by parents working longer hours due to lack of sufficient government support.

Simply put, you cannot point to a single difference in vastly different nations and then claim it's excessive without a deep investigation into the surrounding factors.

How do the "social safety nets" of the US compare to that of other nations? What impact does it have on student outcome?

No, that's your own experience. However, what you are presenting here are assertions. I'm not saying your assertions are wrong just that you cannot expect me to simply believe what you perceive to be true,

Overall, it seems like you have a tendency to view problems without considering surrounding factors. A lot of people have this issue when considering fiendishly complex systems and it's precisely why we should rely on scientific study rather than merely personal experience/bias to identify and rectify societal issues.

I like healthy competition and I don't want Intel to die off but they have been anti-competitive assholes from day one, so fuck them and fuck the people that invest in them.