The right to free association is not as well protected as that. Anti-discrimination laws, for example, have been upheld at the supreme court level with regard to spaces that are generally publically accessible, even if they are privately owned. If congress were to write a law requiring social media companies to allow anyone to use them for any constitutionally protected speech, there wouldn't be any constitutional barrier to that. Conversely, private individuals could argue that because the federal government is pressuring social media companies to better police free speech, their first amendment rights are being burdened without such protections.

I don't understand why news sites would expect to get money from Facebook. Don't they have their own advertisers? If anything, Facebook should charge them for sending them clicks.

Why would propaganda, swastikas, or dangerous social media challenges fall outside the realm of free speech? Even if you are only speaking about first amendment protections, all of those things would be protected.

News organizations and social media outlets that suppressed the story have admitted they were wrong and publicly apologized.

The former head of manned spaceflight at NASA lost her job for pointing this out.

Many people use resistive electrical heaters, which are as easily powered by nuclear as anything else. It is also possible to use electricity to produce methane, which will work in place of natural gas. You'd have to pass some special exemptions to get enough capacity built before winter, but it would be possible from a technical standpoint.

People always talk like sustaining a fusion reaction is the all they need to do to make this a practical energy source. But if these reactors cost billions of dollars just to make 1/2 a gigawatt of thermal power, that is not practical. If they need to be completely overhauled every year, that is not practical. So, in reality, sustaining a reaction is only the first step to making something like this work. After you have that working, there is still a ton of development that needs to happen before this could become a practical power source.

Obviously a bigger satellite can have more bandwidth. It will have more antennas and more power to run them. Yes, a bigger one would be more effective, but these are the biggest ones Starship can launch and deploy, and if/when it flies, it will be be biggest rocket there is.

I am still not seeing how this could threaten their seats. Are they worried about losing big tech money during campaign season?

I don't think that's true. The constitution bans prosecuting people for actions that were legal at the time they were committed. It does not guarantee that special privileges, like copyright, will continue to exist in the future. By your logic, it would be illegal to extend the length of copyright protection for existing works, because doing so would limit the future rights of non-copyright holders.

I think you mean to say that the means justify the ends. The goal is to punish Disney, which some find undesirable, but the proposed method is to reduce the length of copyright, which most would agree is probably a good idea.

When they first began developing the site, they wanted it as an alternative site for Falcon 9 launches, so they got approval for those. However, Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center have greatly increased the number of launches they can support since then (by increasing automation they were able to reduce the turn over time between launches) and SpaceX found that the Texas site would be redundant.

Later, when the began their Starship program, they began by developing facilities in both locations (Texas and Florida), but found that work at Texas was progressing much faster, and put their Florida operations on hold. While they were able to get immediate approval for suborbital flight testing of Starship, they have had a harder time getting approval for orbital flights.

That being said, they already have approval for launches in Florida, and they are moving rapidly to build construction and launch facilities there. At this point, it looks like they will be launching from Texas first, but if the delays continue for another year or so, their Florida operations could be ready to go first.

A lot of US mines were idled, but they are still there, so getting them started up will take a lot less time than building an entirely new mine. It is unfortunate that politicians have only recently discovered the necessity of not relying on other nations for mineral production. Hopefully this new-found awareness will extend to manufacturing as well.

This is really just garden variety NIMBY stuff, and it prevents all kinds of important development in many locations. To stop it, we really need concrete standards for what kind of development is and is not allowed, and what kind of âoeharmâ people are allowed to sue over. People shouldnâ(TM)t be able to use the courts to harass developers and prevent them from building legal structures.

People consistently believe that property owners have more rights than they really do.