Cute, but I think reality would like a few words:

Planning permission. Especially so in Europe, maybe not such a problem with Trump, apart from the fact he *hates* anything "green".
Geology. Not all ground is suitable for building a heavy structure like a dam, or retaining the water it would hold back, reducing the number of glaciers this could apply to somewhat, and a proper survey can take a lot of time. You definitely do not want to build a dam on unsuitable ground.
Geography. You'd need to be able to get construction materials to the dam, and multiple glaciers may run off into the same valley, reducing the number of potential locations for hydro even further. Also, in the kinds of places where you find a lot of glaciers (mountainous regions, duh!), the valleys tend to be heavily used for things like habitation and agriculture, which would need relocating first.
The clock is ticking. Once the glaciers are gone, your dams are only going to be dealing with runoff from precipitation. Which isn't what it used to be where the glaciers are or the glaciers wouldn't be shrinking in the first place.

So, even with a viable location, you've got to get planning permission, relocate anything in the way, build the dam & turbines, connect it to the grid, and generate as much electricity as you can before... Oh, wait, wasn't there a glacier up there when we started?

Which would mean its casing is currently being (or already has been) abraded by the bedrock and all the bits and pieces of gravel and larger detritus that typically lies at the bottom of a glacier and get churned around as the glacier slowly flows downslope. From there, it'll be seeping into the glacial runoff water and, as TFS notes, eventually make its way into the River Ganges.

Of course, if you've actually seen (or smelled) the Ganges once it gets deeper into India, combined with what other purposes the locals use it for, including raw sewage and cremation residue disposal, you'll be well aware that it's far from the most pristine water in the world to start with. Adding a little Pu-239 over a number of years into that soup probably isn't going to make all that much of a difference in the larger scheme of things.

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

Isn't that the point with things like this? Since I don't have any Facebook/X/etc. accounts, that, and all the other similar online forum sites, is *exactly* what they would get were I ever to visit the US (which is not likely given they seem to be competing with social media to see who can rape the most of my personal data). I also have a wildcarded email domain with different addresses for different companies and a whole bunch of mailing lists that have been around for decades, so they can have a copy of my aliases table too. If whichever poor bastards get to look at it don't need therapy after trawling through all the AC-posted crap and inane flamewars in all that, then I'll be amazed. And as for finding anything I've overlooked and proving it was deliberate concealment... Yeah. Good luck with that!

I would need to see if if you can submit a GDPR request to a federal agency but, if so, then following up with one of those asking for a copy of everything they have on file after getting back home (assuming they approved my visit in the first place after yanking their chain with the above) could be entertaining too. Probably ensure an instant blackball on any future visits, but still - ROFLMFAO! In fact, come to think of it, I might just plan a short trip somewhere in the US just for the Lulz if this ever comes to pass.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

Yeah, that too. :) However, in practical terms, I'd assume that given enough time, willpower, and a LOT of $$$ we would both solve the environmental challenges and develop a "spacebus" to enable more efficient colonization, so the gene pool would become sufficiently diverse before it becomes a major problem. If not, we already know how that might work out from all of the historic in-breeding of the European royal families, in particular the Hapsburgs, although YMMV on what physical attributes, or personality traits for that matter, will be more likely to be "enhanced" in the Mars colony scenario.

Good luck with that. Birth rate might be declining in many countries, but we're still spawning around 100m new humans every year. That's an awful lot of human freight just to break even, and while prioritising shipping those of breeding age to transfer the newborns off-world (with all the physical development complications that likely entails) might help a bit, the reality is there are only two ways we get to point where more humans live offworld:

1. We take a long, long, long, time doing it.
2. A massive die off of those left on Earth.

Either way, the Earth-bound serfs are screwed.

Yes, but in this case the US Government is the bank... China owns $700b of their debt, and can effectively either ask them to pay it back (cash out) when the bonds mature or dump some - or all - of them on the bond market at any point they choose.

Dumping them reduces their value, including any of China's remaining holdings, but would almost certainly cause the US' credit rating to be downgraded - and therefore the interest required to service its debt - all $38 trillion and counting of it! - to go up. It doesn't take many fractions of a percentage point increase to cause the US economy real problems in that scenario. If they decide to cash out mature bonds, then the US either has to pay up - which basically means balancing cutting budgets and raising taxes to raise the cash, or printing more money and devaluing the Dollar to pay for it instead; meaning prices of US imports and the cost of servicing the remaining debt both go up again. Neither are going to be popular with the US electorate.

The final option would be the nuclear one; default. That would crash the US economy completely, and bring most of the rest of the world's down with it, but especially those that have a significant slice of the global financial markets and a heavy reliance on imports (US, UK, EU...), but less so for those that, for various reasons, don't import much and are less dependant on the financial markets (BRICS). A default would also mean that the US' credit rating and value of the USD would go way down, so interest rates go through the roof and the cost of imports would skyrocket. On the plus side (if you can call it that), with the USD being worth less compared to other currencies, and perhaps significantly so, it could become *really* easy for the US to export anything it can still produce once the dust settles.

So, I take it you didn't read and understand my comment? At no point did I say China's imports are considerably smaller than their imports - I actually stated the opposite (see the last sentence of the first paragraph) - just that it's not quite the almost absolute "all or nothing" OP implied.

To re-iterate: Plenty of countries make stuff China wants, and they do indeed import in significant quantities from many different countries, contrary to what OP implied, it's just that despite all those imports their exports *still* massively outstrip their imports (as your linked data clearly indicates). Also, OP implied they were just sitting on the resulting surplus as cash (virtual or not), which was the real point of my post - that they are not doing that at all. They are, in fact, weaponising it and turning it into the economic equivalent of an aircraft carrier by buying government bonds (e.g. the national debt) of countries that they may have a problem with in the future. Many of the rest they are shackling using Belt & Road loans. If it comes to it, being able to crash an adversaries economy by dumping those bonds, then hitting it with a barrage of cyber attacks, there's a pretty good chance they'll be on their knees and have a panicing population to deal with before anyone even needs to fire off any kind of conventional weaponry.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

That's a very western-centric view. China imports a large range of products extensively, including western produce and finished goods. Examples include: specialist electrical and mechnical goods, especially for manufacturing their exports and for medical/scientific/power generation use; oil and gas; grain and soy beans; prestige western cars, mostly European; plus significant quantities of various ores, minerals, and other raw materials... They do have a significant trade surplus, but it's nothing like as vast your comment implies.

Regardless, it might just be a database entry of some numbers, but don't just sit on it but rather convert it into things like government gilts and bonds - "Treasury Securities", in US parlance. Still a database entry, but one that turns that fiat piece of coloured paper into a way to help out an ally, or into a notional lever they could pull to disrupt the economy of the bonds they hold; dump a large number of the bonds, and watch the economy in question take a dive as inflation spirals upwards. Yes, the book value of the rest of their holding goes down too, but that's still a better use of the money than just torching the virtual equivalent of a pile of coloured paper sat in a warehouse, Joker style.

As of September, China is currently the third largest foreign holder of US T-Bills ($700.5b), after Japan ($1189.3b) and the UK ($865.0b), then you're rapidly into the long tail with Canada in 4th place at a "mere" $475.8b. That's quite a lot of influence, should they choose to use (read "burn") it.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.