AOC told Wolf Blitzer that part of the impeachment effort is to prevent a disastrous outcome next year.

https://rumble.com/v8g1n3-aoc-speaks-with-wolf-blitzer-about-impeachment-efforts.html

At the 2-minute mark,

It's also worth pointing out that, if you do have US military technology, a $1000 drone is very easy to shoot down with $10 in bullets.

Drones are NOT easy to shoot down. They are very different than shooting clay pigeons (or real pigeons) because those are a known size, start at a known place, and follow a straight line. A drone can fly 10' off the ground; or 100' off the ground; or 300' off the ground. It can dodge left or right; speed up or slow down; increase or decrease its altitude. In general, it can fly in evasive patterns that will defeat, or at least greatly reduce the effectiveness of, a human shooter. Or just fly in at night, or in fog, where a human can't even see it. (And, no, night vision doesn't magically solve the problem.)

Now, could you use an automatic weapon system? Sure. However, with the overhead cost and maintenance of those systems, it definitely isn't $10 to shoot down a drone. Plus, it still doesn't help with a drone that comes in below the level of rooftops, blocking line of sight with your weapon system.

I'm sceptical of this claim, I'm not well enough informed about what's on the test, but I know the reputation and have seen some of the questions.

I mean this as a serious point, and not an ad hominem attack: Then why are you giving an opinion/insinuating this is a bad test? You just admitted "I'm not well enough informed..." and then weigh in on the subject.

This is one of the problems that we have in our society - people weigh in on things they don't have any idea about, and force others to change (or at least answer the criticism) when their objection is not based on facts or experience.

All of the problems that they discuss in the article can be solved by getting rid of cars: the scooters are not slow and vulnerable amid two-ton vehicles, because there are no two-ton vehicles.

Except there are plenty of things that can't be done with a scooter. Delivery trucks are an obvious one, as are maintenance vehicles, and contractor vehicles. Plus, there are plenty of people who have to move things that can't be moved with a scooter. Has anyone ever brought donuts to your office? How do you carry 5 dozen donuts on a scooter? Or are you just assuming everyone has a Dunkin Donuts in their office building?

Plus, there are people who CAN'T ride a scooter. So, everyone who has a handicapped parking permit still needs to drive their cars.

Finally, unless you live in a desert, any inclement weather is going to prevent scooters from being used. I'm not just talking rain - there are plenty of major cities (and entire countries) that get snow in the winter, and scooters are going to be a non-starter there.

To bad the Democratic nomination will probably go to one of these three when there are actually better candidates farther down in the stack. Andrew Young and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind.

I might be willing to discuss Gabbard with you, but the $1k/month "Freedom Dividend" is a non-starter with Yang. I mean, he is literally offering the public their own money back if they vote for him.

The headline says, "It's So Hot in Nebraska, You Can Bake Biscuits in Your Car" but you that isn't quite what happened.

From the article: After baking in the sun for nearly eight hours, the biscuits were edible, but the middle remained "pretty doughy."

So, while they may have been made "edible" after 8 hours in the sun, they were not, actually, "baked". Plus, I would definitely want to check the internal temperature of the biscuits to make sure the middle got hot enough to kill all of the bacteria.

Using markers on the roads will not work because they are not constant.

Until they install new ones. If they focused on the Interstates, this would only take a few months and would provide a uniform marker across all of the states. While this wouldn't make end-to-end self-driving possible, it would allow a LOT of trucking to be self-driving - drive truck to the Flying J outside of Los Angeles; tell it to drive the Interstates to the Flying J outside of Chicago, Dallas, Memphis, or wherever; then have a driver meet it there and drive it into the city.

If you are worried about damage or vandalism, you could have the vehicles report in if they don't see a sign that should be there and a crew can be dispatched. Heck you could also put grooves in the pavement itself and have the vehicles use that as a guide.

The rest must be melt water from glaciers and snow on land.

It's not quite that straightforward since the polar ice is made up of fresh water, and the ocean is salt water. That means the melting ice with change the density of the oceans making the math more complicated.

Yet...he did absolutely NOTHING to make them pay tax. If anything, the tax plan made sure they paid even less in taxes.

This just shows you have no idea how the Federal Government works. The President isn't the one who sets taxes. That would be Congress. Also, as for the wall, that's ALSO Congress. In fact, the wall was authorized in 2006 with the Secure Fence Act (which Obama and Biden both voted for.)

So, instead of reveling in your hatred of all things Trump, watch some Schoolhouse Rock, read the Constitution, or do something to be informed about how things work instead of complaining about the wrong person.

Also, the whole "Dictator" thing is laughable. It reminds me of the "OMG! He will have The Button and kill us all!" when he was first elected. It is full of sound and fury but, in the end, signifies nothing.

Yes, people can get bored doing nothing. While some will continue to due nothing, most people want to feel useful, needed, and accomplish something meaningful to THEIR life.

I'm guessing that the number of hours people spend playing video games, watching TV, gambling, and other non-productive pursuits far, FAR outweighs the number of hours people spend on "building, creating, inventing, researching, work on my games, etc"

The way it works is: say company X, paying the carbon tax, decides to pass the extra cost to the customer. But another company, Y, who has better technology or better process, generates less or no carbon emissions, so it will not pay the same tax, and won't have any extra cost to pass to customers! And, here's the trick, customers will say "why should we pay the bigger price for company X, when we can get a similar product more cheaply from company Y?".

Except that oil/gas/energy is a mature industry. Sure, there are efficiencies to be gained, but all the low-hanging fruit was picked decades ago. It's why gas prices have stayed the same (or close to it) over the past several decades if you account for inflation. Gas prices have a far greater difference based on location than on production method efficiency, so there really isn't a golden goose to be had.

I don't see the benefit of being the only one not pissing in the pool. i.e. Being the only ones to massively reduce our CO2.

Why? Because we know that catastrophic issues start to happen at 2C of warming. That will happen globally, and not just in countries that continue with high CO2 output. It doesn't matter if we have 3.1C of warming or "only" 3.0C of warming - the catastrophic issues will still happen. So, why should we pay trillions of dollars when we (and the world) will still get 95% of the problems - but only the U.S. will get the bill.?

As a car analogy... It doesn't matter if we are driving towards a cliff at 75 MPH or just 55 MPH or even 10 MPH. If we get to the cliff Bad Things happen to everyone in the car. So, the U.S. could go to zero emissions and slow the climate change car from 75 MPH to 55 MPH, but we still hit that cliff - and the U.S. ends up paying trillions on top of everything else.

I would recommend contacting the CS department or Engineering College at the local University.

First, since it is only an 8-person company, it is something that doesn't need a full-time person, which means you won't be the consultant's only priority; and, odds are, they will have a bigger customer that will always be their higher priority.

Second, there are usually many students who help run the University/College/Department systems - including computer labs - which means they have some experience with actual networks and figuring out work-arounds. The risk here is to make sure they think like admins instead of college students, but that should come out in an interview.

Third, Universities/Departments/Faculty like to keep a good reputation with their communities, so they generally only recommend good students.

Fourth, students charge less than professionals. If you offer a student something anywhere near a "professional" hourly rate, they will bust their butts for you - since it is going to be a really sweet gig for them and they don't want to lose it.

Good luck!

Nature is a peer reviewed publication. So, there were multiple, independent levels of error. That's not how it's supposed to work.

Ideally it works that way. However, it often fails in one way or another (skipped reviews, for profit models, no one wants to say a leader in a field is wrong, etc.) Which is why publication to a wide audience is, essentially, the final fail safe.

This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.

This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.