found, something.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

the article only has quotes on him asking to approve it. there is zero about his reasoning. did he just say those 4 quoted phrases about senate having to say yes? or did he provide any semblance of a reason for why they have to say yes?

i can't find his actual words anywhere.

here are the latests "new" on whitehouse.gov:
      Reasons We Need the Clean Water Rule
      4 Years of Building Energy Efficiency Across America
      Implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

exactly this!!!

C++ != C

so, if you are going to break away from C, and use a high level language, use a high level language.

Do not use something crippled and ill designed. C++ was good when the alternative was cobol or fortan. And the only reason it is where it is today was because it got a ride on C reputation. But as you pointed out, it is not C.

Health care system give too much power to the Doctors, and they get their hands into everything. They figure because they went to medical school they seem to be an expert on all thing. But because they are in such a position of power other non-clinical departments need to kiss up to them. We can get a 5 minute pitch to say why we may think it may be a bad idea (usually out of the blue as it becomes a surprise change) but if it technically can be done it will end up having to be implemented. And they want it now with no patients for testing, and way too cheap to setup a good testing environment.
Then we have issues because we were forced to implement a bad design, then it is a case those IT guys screwed up again! Even the fact it mostly worked is a near miracle that it even works.

We can have better and safer health care IT if the doctors shut up and take what we make for them. They can state there problems on the high level, but they will nitpick into a crap system.

Disrupt no, change yes and it always will. Globalization will also change it.
When they started to make drums they found a way to make music louder so it can be heard hundreds of meters away. So music changed.
Additional instruments created new sound so the singer wasn't always needed. Then we have forms where the singer emulates the sound of the instrument.
We get to the point were instruments can be fine tuned then music can be played as written allowing wider distribution of music.

Streaming will change music, being that the artist are not bound by media lengths. They can have a short 30 second song or a 3 hour long song.

Also the fact that music is now listen more privately over headphones, increases the music diversity, you don't need to feel guilty that after some heavy metal music you can switch to music theater without people looking at you funny.

Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the last mile user a bit more. Making sure they get their coverage as well.

Not necessarily.
Pay may be part of it. However there are other motivations. The degree of artistic control, Sometime a fancier title means you get more say on your ideas. Creative types are known to take positions for less pay where they have more control of their work.
Inclusions at the C level meetings. Sure meeting are boring, and most of us really don't want to be there. But it is sometimes nicer to get the information before it becomes a surprise, and have the power to shoot down stupid ideas earlier.
Sure Apple is a huge player. But Google may want Ives, or Samsung, or Sony. Perhaps some little known startup company will get him.

My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.

Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.

"Publish or Perish", Degrees that require new original ideas, Strict hierarchy structure...
Academic institutions are culturally stuck in victorian times. So if you want to work up, get the choice projects and research, you need to publish. The more your publish, the higher the chances you will move up. Because there is so much published material, people don't read it much, so they found that they can get credit for half ass work.
Your name becomes your brand, so when you try to get a grant your name+institution you will work for will get you the grant money.
There isn't any reason why Say State University of New York Buffalo can't get a grant to study seismology, but chances are it will go to University of California Berkeley not because they will do a better job, but because of the name.
Finally institutions haven't learned how to deal with today's political climate with the attempt for breaking news. Every Hypothesis is sold to the public as a new Theory... Then if that Hypothesis is shown false (as it is common in science) then the media who may have a political slant will go and say see Science is Wrong again, just like our political stance has predicted!

Science for the most part is quite work, collaborating with like minded people, with checks and balances to try to filter out strong egos. But it has gone commercial so these checks and balances are weaken as strong egos will win out.

The US always pays its debts when they are due. I think perhaps the problem is you don't understand how US debt works, and why it is a bit special:

So the most important thing to understand is the US doesn't go and beg people to give it money, rather it auctions debt. People come and purchase the debt. You can do it yourself on their Treasury Direct site. The US sells debt instruments to interested buyers. They are bid on, and whoever bids the lowest interest rate wins. The upshot is the US sets the terms of the debt instruments sold. They have a variety, some are as short as 4 weeks, some as long as 30 years. When you buy something, the terms of repayment are stated up front: What it'll pay, and when. There is no provision to cash out early, and you don't get to dictate any terms, you just choose what note you want to buy (if they are available).

This is how public debt works in a lot of countries, but it isn't how things go when you are getting loans from the IMF.

The other important thing is that all US debt is denominated in US dollars. A US debt instrument specifies how many dollars it'll pay out and that number is NOT inflation adjusted, except in a few very special cases. Well the US government also controls the US mint, which makes US dollars. So the US government can literally print money, and inflate its way in to payments. There are negatives to that, of course, but it is perfectly doable. The US controls its fiscal and monetary policy regarding its debt. Since all its debts are in US dollars, and since US dollars are the world's reserve currency, the US cannot face a crisis where it can't pay, unless such a crisis is internally generated (via the debt limit).

Not the case with Greek debt, it is in Euros and Greece doesn't control the Euro.

Finally, there's the fact that the US has great credit. Doesn't matter if you disagree that it should, fact is it does. Investors are willing to loan the US money for extremely low interest rates because they see it as a very safe investment. 4 week T-Bills have been going for between 0%-0.015%. 30-year bonds have been going for 2.5%-3.75%. Investors bid the interest rates very low because they desire it as a safe investment.

Now now, environmentalists only live where there is a temperate climate, thus have no need to consider the finer details of real world application. Those who have real world needs are just wrong or corrupt.

Scale: charging your phone with 5 volts compared to a car at 120/220 volts.
Safety: that much current floating around means if a child wanders in the wrong area they are fried
Efficiency: If it is half efficient to charge our phones. No big deal its conscience makes up for the cost. But to power a car you will feel the extra cost. Besides you get a electric car because it is better for the environment and if we need to create extra coal plants to power these cars its carbon footprint gets bigger.
Reliability: a car goes threw a lot of stressed. Rain, snow, ice, wind, salt, bugs, animals nesting in it.

It isn't the same as making a wireless charger to charge a 2 ton cell phone.

There is a New York state law banning male daycare teachers from changing diapers.
There is a strong preference in custody cases that the child will end up with the mother, even if she isn't nearly as fit to parent.

There is actually more of a written inequality against men then woman.

If the power goes out you don't Fallon a hard surface.
This takes a lot of power and I don't see a big tank for fuel. So I expect that was its range.

There is a lot of energy to lift itself and say 150lbs of person.