I'll quote from the Wikipedia Article: "In urban planning, walkability is the accessibility of amenities by foot." It is important to contrast this with the practices it was intended to counter (again from the same article): "... urban spaces should be more than just transport corridors designed for maximum vehicle throughput."

Transit is an integral part of walkable planning simply because it gets people *into* neighborhoods so they can do things on foot. But cars are a way to get people into an area too, so cars can and should be part of *walkability* planning. For example there's a main street area near me with maybe 50-70 stores. When I visit I contribute to congestion by driving around looking for a parking spot. A carefully placed parking lot could reduce car congestion on the street while increasing foot traffic and boosting both business and town tax revenues.

Because a law passed by Congress actually *requires* what you are calling "the administrative state" to draft those regulations. The executive branch can't regulate something just because it thinks doing that would be a good idea. There has to be a law directing the executive branch to draft such a regulation.

Now if you actually look in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), you will see that each and every regulation in the CFR cites a *statutory authority* -- that is to say a law passed by Congress which compels the executive branch to draft a regulation about such an such a thing. For example 40 CFR Part 50, a regulation written by the "administrative state", cites 42 USC 7401 a statute passed by Congress.

Note that I say the statutes "require" and "compel", not "empower" and "enable". That's bcause the executive branch has no choice in the matter. It *must* issue a regulation if so directed by statute, even if it disagrees with that statute. This is why regulations don't just disappear when an anti-regulation president gets elected. An administration can tweak regulations to be more favorable to business, but if they go too far in undermining the intent of the statute they'll get sued for non-enforcement of the law (e.g., this).

So if you think an adminsitration has overstepped its statutory authority with a regulation, and you have standing, you can sue to have the regulation amended. But if you fail in your suit, you won't be able to fix it by electing a President who agrees with you. You need a Congress which will repeal the statory authority for the regulation.

If your information on this stuff from political news channels, you can be forgiven for thinking government bureaucrats just make up regulations on their own initiative, but it just doesn't work that way.

The idea that poor folks are the backbone of Trump's base is a myth. In 2016 Clinton won the under $50k income vote by 12% and tied with Trump in the over $100k income group. Trump notched a modest 3% margin of victory in the $50k-$100k group.

The actual backbone of Trump's base is white people without a college degree who are nonetheless doing fairly well for themselves. This is particularly influential demographic in rural states, which have outsize representation in the Electoral College.

They're listed in Article I, Section 8.

general welfare of the nation.

Delivering wads of cash to some random non-profit organization does not fit that description.

Even presuming that your premise is correction (which non-profit organization would that be?), a large portion of the electorate and a string of court decisions say otherwise, so you'll just have to ineffectually rage at the country for "doing it wrong."

Where does the federal government get the legal authority to "invest" in "clean energy?" I'm pretty familiar with the constitution and I don't see the word "invest" in Congress' enumerated powers.

You're not very familiar with the Constitution if you don't see the words "provide for the... general Welfare of the United States" and understand what it means. If your argument is as basic as "Congress can spend money," hence that part of Article I, section 8, clause 1 being known as the Spending Clause, "but it can't invest money in technological development through spending," then you're going to have a bad, bad day in court.

Could bullshit like this be the reason we're $30 trillion in debt?

No, that's attributable to Republicans' near religious belief that wherever we are on the Laffer curve, the optimal tax rate is still lower than it is now. Of course, the very notion of the Laffer curve belies that argument, because at a tax rate of 0 you collect, get this, 0.

IPhone 12 was launched in 2020, at a price of 799 USD. IPhone 15 was launched in 2023, at a price of....wait for it... 799 USD. The world of "let's make up facts" is very harmful for civil discourse and democracy.

You do - just don't buy a Roku. Buy an AppleTV instead.

I've been out of IT for many years now, but one question I always have about these ransom scenarios is this: wouldn't advanced journaliing filesystems make recovery from an attack much easier, particularly filesystems where you can mount a shapshot? You could just start serving a past snapshot then make any updated files available as you clear them.

Back in the day I had customers who had incompetent DBAs bork their databases with bad SQL DML and DDL. Where the customer was using Oracle it was pretty easy to walk that stuff back because under the covers Oracle has been making heavy use of COW in their database storage. This allowed me to selectively walk back certain sets of problematic transactions. I could roll back just the transactions made by a certain user on a certain day that involved particular operations or database objects. You didn't have to figure out how to undo the individual effects of the bad transactions, you just waved your magic wand and it was as if those transactions never happened.

There must be some reason people aren't using file systems with COW and efficient snapshotting for general file service, because of on the face of it this seems like an obvious solution to the problem.

Even less - the French TGV states that CO2 emissions per km per passenger is 3.2 g. For airplanes, a modern plane gives about 115 g of CO2 per passenger pr km. The French power mix is mostly nuclear, which would explain the low emissions.

You are the customer - unlike Google, where you are the product they sell. Homeassistant running on a Raspberry Pi works great, though - I'll definitely second that recommendation.

Bail should end in any case. Either, you should be in custody - e.g due to an ongoing investigation, flight danger, or being a danger to the public. If there is no good reason to keep you in jail, you shouldn't have to post bail.

It's both easing of the accellerator and using the brakes to scrub off speed, with precise performance altered by the drive mode.

In this case the reasoning is somewhat circular. *If* there are many simulated worlds just like ours and there is only one real world, then it's more probable that our world is simulated than it is real. That's necessarily true, because it's a tautology. The truth of the statement as a whole tells you nothing about the world we actually live in.

As usual, tech bro hype has taken some impressive (to laymen) demos and spun them into a scenario that is far beyond was is demonstrably possible. Sure we can have the comptuer draw pretty pictures, but we actually can't model the world we live in very well. No computer model can tell you the price of Apple stock at the close of business tommorow or the temperature at 2PM in the afternoon a year from now. You can't model a fusion reactor sell enough to get to the point of building a working power station, you have to build many physical experiments to validate your model results. As the statistician George Box famously noted: all models are false; some models are useful.

As for faith, it has its place in science. You do an experiment because you feel confident it's going to tell you something; you usually have a pretty good idea of what you want to happen. That feeling of confidence is important in directing your efforts, but it carries no weight in arguments about results. Faith is only a "sin" (Greek *hamartia* -- to miss the mark) when you demand others share it.

The article is dated March 30th.

For most people some of the time, and for just about everyone some of the time, modern automatic transmissions will perform better than they would with an ICE vehicle. But no matter how good any automatic transmission is, the one thing it will never be able to do is read your mind about what you *intend* to do next. So there will always be situations with an ICE vehicle where you'd rather have a manual or semi-automatic than an automatic.

That doesn't apply to electric motors, which produce nearly peak torque at 0 RPM and then over a wide range of RPMs; so you never have to match the motor's RPMs to what you want to do next. There are corner cases, like towing an extremely heavy load or traveling at extremely high speeds outside the motor's very wide power band, where you'd want to have different gear ratios. There are various ways for engineers to address these cases, but if they chose to give a vehicle a shiftable transmission, there's no reason that a computer couldn't do the shifting; there's no need for it to "read your mind".

As for on snow, regenerative braking can feel a lot like engine braking depending on your driving settings. In a vehicle's maximum efficiency mode the motor will very noticeably begin to absorb energy from the wheels when you let up on the "gas".