A few too many bong hits? Bet it took ten minutes to write that.

FirstEnergy stole >$500 million by applying a surcharge to rate payers for smart meters, dumped the money into a general fund and spent it on other stuff, including some bribes of Ohio politicians, and colluded with the PUC to alter audit records to cover it all up. The former Ohio house speaker is in prison over it right now. Another politician died before trial; supposedly a suicide...

And no, we're not talking about different hardware. The same rampant corruption is endemic throughout the entire industry for all such procurement. The contractors, utilities, PUCs and politicians are all feeding at this trough.

You can provide an anecdote of your personal experience in one case. I, however, can tell you about the half billion dollar scam of FirstEnergy (Ohio), or what's gone on in Oregon, California, Michigan and others. The cases PUC scams around "smart grid" equipment are legion. Some of them are exposed. Many are entirely suppressed when the more competent criminals ensure the auditors are (willingly) prevented from noticing.

You are exhibiting insufficient cynicism. The people responsible are highly competent.

Their competence is discreetly handling the acquisition of COTS hardware at DOD prices from politically connected contractors. The contractors pocket the massive margins and fund the designated campaigns. These are the real priorities. Not whatever silly security concerns plebs like you have.

Any given tech nerd could do better at a fraction of the cost. But that wouldn't fund the mcmansions and range rovers and boats.

I think a two party democratic system is terrible and it should be easier to create new parties. The current two should likely be split.

My reasoning is that a democratic system should not be treated as a sports game of two teams. There are plenty of views and we need variety of representation, not to simply fall in line with the two options available or be treated as an outsider.

Don't forget the Terafab in Grimes TX.

Looking at the decision, it really makes a lot of sense. The coast of Louisiana has been a nexus of transport in the US since before it became the US. Obviously, there is the Gulf of America (hehe) plus the Mississippi river. That led to a convergence of several interstate roads. Plus, there is ample barely drained low value land with sparse population, and no risk that it will see a bunch of sub/exburbs sprout up in the foreseeable future. The state government, similar to the other gulf states, isn't bat-shit crazy commie adjacent, so that's another plus.

If they can get it built before POTUS is (D) again, they can pencil whip all the federal endangered species pressure group bullshit.

Hurricanes are a thing though. Obviously that will interfere with operations from time to time.

Angry inch Californian watching the cool shit not happen in California anymore.

An RTX 3090 24GB is about $2150 new.

I've spent more on gaming rigs a couple times: it's not some unfathomable amount of money.

You're on the right track with this. Except one thing; they didn't pull his bubble card. His fund was rapidly recapitalized before the headline even appeared. There is a lot at stake, the music is still playing, and they can't afford to have reality asserting itself on behalf of this chucklehead. His sandbox is a good deal smaller now, but they're letting him stay in the yard.

Correct. I used the term "pattern." SCOTUS has a number of mechanisms for temporary rulings, often made by a single justice, or by the full court. That is not officially a "panel," but it has the same outcome, and so fits the pattern. Stays, injunctions pending appeal, emergency/summary court orders, etc. SCOTUS has done this many times and whether any given matter ever subsequently appears before the full court is not a given.

So while not termed a "panel," this is a distinction without a difference.

I think that's likely wrong given a serious financial collapse: much of the hardware in play here is booked sales a year or more out. If the bottom falls out, those orders will get cancelled. Further on (speculation upon speculation...,) recovery would be more circumspect, and the demand for hardware less absurd.

Bubble pops don't happen all at once. They progress, first from the weak sisters to the big, name brand to-big-to-fail "omg my pension!" deals. Media exaggeration about historical finance collapses create the misperception that it happens very rapidly, with no warning. That's never the case; there are always precursors.

I don't know if this "Situational Awareness" is such a case, and you don't either. But this is exactly how the start of a larger collapse looks: a nasty little headline about some sketchy outfit no one has heard of, goes unnoticed outside finance or other narrow media sources. Then more, a couple months later. Then something happens that rocks the world.

You're either repeating what I said or getting into esoterica that isn't relevant: this isn't even on SCOTUS radar yet, and it if ever gets there, SCOTUS won't be entertaining any of the possibilities you mention: no political force in the US is going to intervene with SCOTUS on behalf of "Xinuos" et al. in our lifetimes. That's fantasy that exists exclusively in only the more demented minds of IP rent seekers.

Some rulings are made by partial ("panel") courts, for expedience, and when that happens the option exists to request the same court reconsider the ruling, but with a full bench ("en banc" court). That's what's going on here. This pattern of panel/en banc rulings exists at both appeals courts and SCOTUS.

When en banc SCOTUS makes a ruling or declines an appeal, that's the end of the road: there is no higher authority for appeals. It is possible to get SCOTUS to reconsider a ruling, but such requests are truly extraordinary, like POTUS or the Senate asking SCOTUS for reconsideration, with new evidence or some emergency situation at hand. None of that is even on the same planet as this Xinuos stuff.

They're probably not going to get their en banc hearing. And it won't take long to not get it, either: this isn't adjacent to any Great Issues of our time, and it's not an opportunity to thwart Trump on anything he cares about, so it's probably not going any further. If, by some tragic chance, they get an en banc hearing, they still have to win the appeal. Who knows though; appeals courts in the US are rife with irrational and/or highly partisan people. Anything could happen. If that came about, the victory will likely die in SCOTUS, like so many the other miscarriages of justice that come from federal appeals courts.

It's not really that complex. 94-ish district courts under 12-ish regional circuit appeals courts, then SCOTUS. Three layers. The "-ish" in there is because there are some special cases and special regions (DC), but those don't apply in this particular case.