If (yes, that's an if) Starship is successful, it will bring launch costs down to a level that completely changes how we approach space. Assuming other companies don't manage to match the feat (another big if), this could indeed make SpaceX worth trillions.

Will it? Tough to say. If SpaceX does an IPO I'll probably buy some, but I won't invest my whole retirement fund.

I think the Composer model is from Cursor, in-house.

Over 8 hours, that's 40 kWh, which equates to around 160 miles. I think the percentage of Americans who drive 160 miles per day, on average, is a lot less than 10%. If everyone could arrange for 5 kW charging at home, there would be very, very few people who couldn't easily switch to an EV.

Even an L1 charger (15A @ 120V = ~1.8 kW) would provide enough for most peoples' daily driving. With 8 hours of charging, that's like 50 miles of range. Some days will be heavier, but if your car has 300 miles of range you can stand a few consecutive heavier-than-normal days, and if there's an L3 charger around for emergency charges on the quite rare occasion they're required, it would be fine. And because cars charge fastest when the batteries are low, those emergency charging stops could be very quick -- 5-10 minutes, just like a gas station stop.

I actually commuted for a few years in an EV with only an L1 charger at home. It was fine.

Absolutely.

So you think it's better if Trump can't be sued for fraud? I don't disagree with your assessment, but I think we're still all better off if Trump's scam business has to defend itself in court.

I don't think there's a price sheet. The amount will depend on what you can afford and on how much heat Trump will take for granting it. That second part is a weak consideration, though, as evidenced by the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted for doing exactly what Nicolas Maduro is alleged to have done (though Maduro probably didn't, not nearly to the same degree, though he was a bad guy in a lot of ways).

I wish everyone had a pet unicorn and their own private rainbow, too.

But... I have to recognize the planet we live on, amongst the animals we call humans.

Let me know when you find a better one.

Genuine question: you don't think there's ever a worthwhile reason to kill another person? Truly?

But the opposite is what's happening right now: they are decreasing their coal imports, and increasing their natural gas imports.
https://www.wita.org/atp-resea...

Wherever he was, I'm certain that progressives will insist that:
- this is an alt-right lie
- it may not be a lie but he wasn't there
- ok he was there, but it wasn't relevant
- yeah it might have been relevant but this is all blown out of proportion by the alt-right media
- there are perhaps scores of bodies but they were bad people anyway
- turns out they were innocents but there are way more important things we should be focusing on.

That's pretty much the script, isn't it?

Also because of coal. Honestly, more as a result of coal, though they certainly have built a lot of solar. But the reason they've been building coal plants like crazy, so much so that many of them are idled from the day they go into service, is because it was their insurance against problems with the oil supply.

I'm a fan of solar power and happy to see the world is building a lot of it, but intellectual integrity demands that we also acknowledge China's investment in coal generation capacity.

China is already the world's largest importer of natural gas. While they do have natural gas reserves, they don't have enough to replace their electrical generation. I expect they mostly are looking for an energy source they don't need to import.

There actually was a push in the UK a few years ago to outlaw pointy kitchen knives, but it met with great resistance and was dropped.

However, the point remains that stabbings in the UK are actually less common that stabbings in the US. This points out that while many think that guns are the cause of the US' violence problem, the real problem is deeper: US culture is just more violent.

I already agreed with you that it would be difficult to return the payments to the consumers, and that it's a reasonable question to ask whether it's possible at all.

I'm not sure there's any point in further discussion here.

The question of the mechanisms for returning money to the people who ultimately paid the tariffs, and how, or even if, it's possible to return the tariff payments to the consumers now that it's been ruled that the tariffs were illegal is a different question.

First, that doesn't change the fact that a tariff is a tax.

Second, Trump has said-- many times-- that tariffs would "raising revenue, pay off the US deficit and reduce Americans' tax burdens." He said this so many times that it's hard to pick just one, but here's one example.

They are not different. A tariff is a tax on incoming goods. Taxes are sometimes used to accomplish purposes other than merely raising revenue.

Consumers paid the tariffs (or, 96% of the tariffs). You argue that this was paid "indirectly", but that's a distinction without consequence. Consumers paid.