I dug into the sources a bit. Apparently they were excluding white neighborhoods from checks, then somebody else was removing non-asian names before forwarding it for further investigation.

source.

Looking into the sources and tracing a bit:

source.

If they actually did this, well, that's like how the NRA forced most "may issue" states to be effectively "shall issue" for various weapon permits.

When the police can't come up with a good reason for denying the black woman's permit request when she has letters from a ex-boyfriend stalker threatening to kill her, who is due to be released from prison soon, but the white doctor living in a gated community gets it first thing, there are questions to be asked. Especially when permits for black people have a 99% reject rate while whites get them 90% of the time.

Just to be clear, I believe that part of the problem was that the city government was broke and basically in receivership. Ergo, the politicians in Flint were not actually in control of the water contracts, it was an emergency manager appointed by Governor Rick Snyder(R).

I remembered the broke part and not in control, looked up the specifics.

Basically, to cut costs, the manager stopped the practice of piping water from Detroit and started using the historically very polluted and corrosive Flint River, without adequate testing and treatment (itself actually a violation of federal law).
Because many of the homes still had lead service pipes, going from basic to acidic caused the protective oxidization on the pipes to dissolve, putting excessive lead into the water.

It eventually made national news, but by all measures, this is still a far better situation than what Tehran is facing.

Switching back to the old water source or adding more controls like running the water through a filter of crushed limestone to correct the PH fixes the issues in Flint. No such easy solution is possible for Tehran.

Sorry, I didn't get that quite correct, they're Passive Autocatalytic Recombiners. They require no external power.

It wasn't just the generators or sea wall. Another one of the problems is that they never installed the hydrogen reformers designed to burn off the hydrogen buildup from an overheating core safely.

As recommended by the reactor manufacturer and installed on US plants.

There would have been a lot less boom with them installed.

1. You have a point. Current reactors are around 30% efficient because they have to have liquid water to cool the reactor, and there are limits to that even with very high pressures. Thus carnot cycle limitations apply. It basically means that a nuclear reactor has to produce 3GW thermal (GWt), to produce 1GWe, so it has to exhaust 2 GWt as waste. Increase the temperature to the point you get 50%, and suddenly you only need to generate 2GWt to produce 1GWe, cutting waste heat in half. A much easier problem to solve at that point.
2. As you identify, there's a limit to what you can dump into the Earth. It just transfers heat too slowly to be practical in most situations. It's actually a problem I ran into when looking at geothermal heat pumps up north, like North Dakota and Alaska. You can actually end up cooling the earth so much as to lose efficiency or effectiveness over time. You might actually want to run some solar thermal panels and pump heat into the system during the summer. Between it being one of the more expensive options and actually less effective than air cooling, it isn't on my standard list.
3. Salt vats would still be a form of air cooling. Better options might be to list waste heat scavenging for zone heating or other industrial purposes. For example, it could be used to help dry new lumber, paper, fabrics, and food (dehydration). Laundries could use it for hot water for washing. Greenhouse heating, and aquaculture.
4. Micro-reactors still require cooling as per the above, and aren't actually in production right now, sadly.
To be clear, I'm not fixated upon large WCRs. I was just looking at the water-cooling restraint many fixate upon.

Indeed. I'd consider it much more likely if we had a process where we could freeze and revive so much as an otherwise healthy mouse. Much less a technically and realistically already dead human.

That's still fixable. Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled. They could build a very large air cooling tower and not need water at all.

Cooling from cheap to expensive:
1. Take in water, return water some amount hotter. Requires the most water to limit temperature rise.
2. Take in water, evaporate some of the water in a cooling tower. Results in less water, but also takes less water and controls temperature rise better
3. Dry cooling.

Most systems are actually something of a hybrid of the three.

There's yet one more problem (among many): Cryogenic freezing doesn't prevent ice crystals from forming, shattering cell membranes.
Basically, the body is mush where it is critical for it not to be for a successful resuscitation.

A good point, but thinking on the marginal transactional costs to process a sale of additional items after one, people deliberately buying two items to 'stick it' to the business and get maybe 5 cents off their purchase is actually benefitting the business, and the customer spending more time figuring out the exact cost before checking out than the five cents are worth.
Basically, I figure that the business could outright discount every item after the first by 5 cents, and still profit more per item when people are buying 3-4 items at a time rather than one.

I doubt that, especially with varying sales taxes screwing with things.
The draw to price everything in .99 is too high. Or even .95 or .97.

A lot of studies of paper vs plastic bills are looking at paper bills using scrap cotton and linen fibers and still having wood pulp.
US bills use the premium stuff and are 0% wood pulp. As a result, our paper money lasts as long on average as the plastic bills.
The math changes when one considers that we don't have to import our fibers into the country and can thus get the good stuff for less than other countries pay for scrap.

Odds are if you really push it just sounds an obnoxious alarm while letting you out. Kind of like pushing against the gates at my walmart to go out the entrance area rather than the checkouts.
I just give zero hoots and do it anyways.

I'd argue that it is still a factor.
Not a lot of convertibles in Alaska.

And there are vehicles up there that, despite being all ICE, that work better or worse to the point that yes, it is an issue.

Then keep in mind that we're still effectively with the "first year" models. Odds are the underperforming companies will fix their performance sooner or later, or get outcompeted by those that do.

Real world testing gives a wide variety of range reduction in cold weather, depending on the make and model of EV. Some are really good at maintaining range, some are lousy at it.
In any case, preheating the cabin and battery cuts that substantially, and you generally don't need to keep warming the battery while driving as the regular discharge and charging from regenerative braking keeps the battery at operating temperature to limit range loss.
It's a contribution, but it isn't something like 30% is what he's getting at. More likely ~5%.