Perhaps, except apparently this guy came up with the idea on his own. Others have no doubt had the same idea. They just weren't unbalanced enough to carry it out.

The shock of his action is already forcing an open public debate about the state of the health insurance industry and its effect on our health. There is a reason the United States had more people die of COVID than any other country. It is just one more example of the most expensive (and profitable) health care in the world producing the worst results.

We no longer have a health care system, we no longer are treated as individuals. We have a health care industry that delivers industrial assembly line health care where we are just a product run through the factory to produce revenue for the bottom line.

I don't think murdering random health care businessmen is going to change any of that. But treating the murderer as a folk hero might. "John Browns body lies mouldering in the grave, but his truth goes marching on."

I would not count on that logic given the personalities involved here. Its also not clear that Tesla will benefit from incentives that encourage its competition.

Decisions are never based on evidence. Evidence and reason can inform a decision, but it isn't the basis for it. Decisions are based on the values that give weight to any evidence available. They are fundamentally irrational acts of faith. Which is why presented with the same evidence people will make different decisions. Its also the danger of the whole AI idea which assumes a logical machine can replace human judgment. Or should.

AI isn't going to train people to make judgements based on their own values. Instead AI will fill them up with the "right" answers to its limited ability and they will never learn to make a decision of their own, entirely dependent on AI instead. A true dystopia.

That's the way our economy works. Corporations transfer as much of the risk as they can to the public. They have a separate corporation take the remaining risk. If the bet goes bad the losses are limited and the public and creditors are stuck with the bill. But they claim all of the winnings.

I think the real issue is can we produce enough emission free power to replace our current emissions and still meet the growing demand for power. And if not, what doesn't happen?

From current experience the answer is obvious. We have been adding emission free power all over the globe and emissions have been growing. The emission free production hasn't kept up with the growing use of power so we are replacing fossil fuel with more fossil fuel. The growth in data centers is going to exacerbate that problem.

No. The umbrella group was "Hispanic-Americans for the Reelection of the President". And they were targeting the conservative parts of the Mexican communities in the southwest. There were plenty of well-established businessmen who were Republicans and a significant middle class working population that was winnable.

Latino is the male gender, latina the female gender thus the latinx idea as a gender neutral version to represent both. It has had some resistance. The new neutral term seems to be Latine. We will see if that catches on any better. My guess is that if you ask most "Latines" they will say they are Mexican, Colombian, Cuban, Puerto Rican etc. The choice of terminology is really up to those who want to share a common identity.

The world's emissions have continued to climb regardless of who is in office.. Who is in denial? I think its the folks who keep taking measures that don't even remotely deal with the scale of the problem while assuring everyone of the progress we are making. Switch your stove out for electricity, problem solved. We have all sorts of unnecessary emissions that we are doing nothing to stop. And while GNP is connected at the hip with emissions, we pretend one can go on growing while the other is reduced.

This is a good meme with an audience and not surprisingly a bunch of people are hooking onto it to get attention. Some of those are politicians demanding "do something". The least damaging something to do is to hook on to the meme by banning behavior that isn't happening anyway. "There we didn't something. Satisfied?" The answer of course is no, not until the meme has run out of steam.

Ironically, Nixon saw the environment as an issue Republicans could use to beat the Democrats over the head.

Nationalist China was not our friend, they were our client. Taiwan has nothing to complain about. It's separate government exists only because the United States supported it.

They do that by charging rents that produce the largest stream of revenue possible given the market. They can't charge more and very few choose to charge less. Costs matter only to the extent the competition has to pay the same costs. If you can keep your costs lower than the competition you sure as hell don't lower the rent.

Most landlords are barely breaking even based on cash in/ cash out. If they can cash flow a higher mortgage they borrow more money to invest in more property. But in today's market residential prices are exploding and landlords are making a good return on their investment. Unless they made some very bad investment choices..

Its not really about what you imagine the incentives to be. Its about what actually happened. And the effect of the fairness doctrine was that broadcast news was both relatively balanced by today's standards and blandly conventional. About what we should expect from the use of public resources that are owned by all of us.

When you put corporations in charge of the media, the media inevitably starts toeing the corporate line.

I think we need to challenge the idea that government is a larger threat to our personal freedom than the corporate monopolies. They are both threats, but the monopolies are by far the larger threat now. We have no ability set any limits on their control.

You mean politicians appointed as judges who are almost all alumni of the same two university law schools and are all trained to make arguments for why the law should serve their clients interests. The courts are the third branch of government that is accountable to no one. Congress may pass laws, but the courts decide what they mean. If the clear language of a statute doesn't serve their purpose, they invent a new technical legal definition that does.

The fairness doctrine was designed to do the exact opposite of censorship. rather than shut people off its purpose was to make sure all sides were heard. It applied to broadcast licenses for use of the limited broadcast space on public airways. Its purpose was to make sure people received balanced information from those using that space so that they could make their own informed decisions.

"did you tell the truth".

Who decides what "the truth" is. Facts aren't true or false, They are accurate or inaccurate which may be objective. But whether the narrative they support is true is completely beyond objective judgment. That's the truth.