Guess what - we're stuck with that guy.
You're stuck with him because a large enough proportion of the voters, acting through their elected representatives, don't think its worth getting rid of him. Nvidia's voters, acting through their elected representatives, will make the same decision: is his value to the company greater or less than the damage from the bad PR he's brought.
They've all pretty much converged into being same thing so the choice is more what colour you prefer for the logo.
Yeah, I doubt resale value is high on fashion truck buyers' lists either.
I remember commenting when they were announced that they might make great work trucks. Tesla doesn't seem to have had the needs-a-car-but-wants-a-truck market in mind when they designed it though.
Solar or wind farms, which pollute just as much if not more due to the production pipeline to make those machines?
It's funny the things you can claim when you're allergic to numbers, hey? The typical CO2 payback time for a wind project in Wyoming is six months or less on an operational life of 20 to 30 years. Solar seems to be a bit longer but still under a year.
They're not using gasoline. They're using natural gas. Natural gas in places like Wyoming is cheap and generally getting cheaper because it's basically a waste product from oil production.
And, until recently, being a fashion statement wasn't high on most truck buyers lists.
Bullshit. There are some people who buy trucks because they need a vehicle that carries lots of cargo. Farmers, contractors, etc. There are more people (in the US) who buy a truck because they like trucks.
The cybertruck is quite different from both the usual car and truck design. If you want a vehicle that stands out and you don't want to buy a two seater hypercar, it's pretty much your only choice.
2. He did it illegally while not having the power. That was my point!
You didn't say anything about "illegally." Anyway, the US supreme court appears to disagree with you on that point, at least to the point where they don't care to rule on it, and they're the ones whose opinion matters.
The last Congress shamefully ceded its power to him.
Minus the "last" part, yes, that's my point, which I stated explicitly in my original post that you decided to disagree with:
US governments, particularly the post-WWII ones, have consistently passed laws giving the president more and more emergency powers which, combined with a little creative wording, has given them more and more power generally. The US has changed from having a government dominated by an elected assembly with a subordinate executive to one dominated by one person with very broad power. Russia uses euphemisms for war for propaganda purposes. The US uses them to get around awkward bits in its constitution.
In order to make things like the war in Iran illegal the US congress needs to pass laws, which are subject to veto. Both to head off the interpretive power creep a la the Iran war and to repeal previous legislation that did that ceding you mentioned, like
- the War Powers Act: "do WTF you want for 60 days... lol, we had a cease fire so now it's a new 60 days!"
- the very open ended 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "Say the magic terrorist word. Okay, military force authorized!"
The 2001 AUMF is what Trump is using to justify blowing up boats in the Caribbean, BTW. Thus "narco-terrorists."
I'm not conflating anything.
The attack on Iran is certainly on a scale that requires congressional authorisation
And yet there isn't one.
You seem to have an idealized view of the way your country works that you just haven't bothered to consider might be wrong. It is.
So you are making a distinction without a difference.
No, it's a very important distinction, and I'm not the one making it. It's made in US law, law that requires new law (and thus is subject to veto) to change.
You must be an American. Practicality equals hatred for you, at least when it's not aligned with your personal desires.
from circa 2016 to 2024, there was a certain insanity that the US was engaged in.
One does not trust one's national well-being to an "ally" that engages in "certain insanity", periodically or otherwise. It doesn't matter whether 50%+x of your countrymen are assholes, your education system makes you easy victims of propaganda, your political system allows a vicious minority to seize power, or some other reason.
Donald Trump didn't start any new wars. Nor did he continue any old ones because there aren't any. The last time the US started a war was four years before he was born, against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
US governments, particularly the post-WWII ones, have consistently passed laws giving the president more and more emergency powers which, combined with a little creative wording, has given them more and more power generally. The US has changed from having a government dominated by an elected assembly with a subordinate executive to one dominated by one person with very broad power. Russia uses euphemisms for war for propaganda purposes. The US uses them to get around awkward bits in its constitution.
Most of what Donald Trump has done, not just the wars, has used emergency powers. And guess what? Repealing those laws requires passing laws, which require either presidential assent or an anti-veto super majority in congress.
What's stopping you?
Safari, and I'm sure most of the other browsers, let you set your own custom CSS, override any bit of the website's CSS or HTML, and have plugins to make all of that automatic by website.
Every major OS has at least one built in rendering engine that makes it pretty trivial to write your own browser and do WTF you want.
Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.
