As usual, the reality is more complicated.

Back in the '70s, cars were "dirtier" than today, and some EPA folks realized: "If we put some oxygen into the gasoline, engines will burn leaner, emitting less unburnt hydrocarbons!" That's true, if your engine has a carburetor. Accordingly, "oxygenate" was mandated for all gasoline. MTBE was one oxygenate, ethanol (from corn) was another. And, the science worked, and the air got a bit cleaner.

Fast forward to the 90s, when all cars had fuel injection and oxygen sensors. That same "oxygenated" gasoline burns leaner, the O2 sensor notices the mixture is a bit lean, and the fuel injection computer richens the mixture to compensate. Net result: lower fuel economy. Zero difference in emissions.

Today, all car engines have O2 sensors, oxygenate makes zero difference in cars. Yes, oxygenate still helps in small gas engines (any gas engine with a carburetor). The only reason to continue with oxygenate/ethanol is the politics.

Imagine three very similar scenarios:

1 The landlords get together over meal, negotiate prices: "I want to charge at least $2000/month for a one-bedroom..."
2 The landlords all call "Vinnie" for pricing advice: "Hey Vinnie, what's the going rate for a one-bedroom?..." Vinnie knows what everyone else is charging, so the landlords all ask the same rent.
3 Replace Vinnie with Vinnie-5000, basically a bot that suggests rents: "VINNIE-5000 recommends you charge $2000 for a one-bedroom."

All three scenarios are examples of collusion. The fact that we replaced person-to-person negotiation with a machine doesn't change the collusion part.

Before RealPage, standard practice for big landlords was to try to keep all their units rented as much as possible, discounting rents as necessary to get or keep tenants. RealPage takes the opposite tack: RP advises landlords what to charge, and RP advises landlords to stay firm on rents: no discounts. Existing long-term (e.g. desirable) tenants get the the same rent increases as a just-vacated unit. Result: renters see the same pricing everywhere, because the landlords are colluding. Existing tenants outraged by a rent increase won't leave, because they can't find a better deal anywhere else. Over time, rents are ratcheted up, and landlords make more $$$.

Here's yet another way to look at it: Why would all the big landlords in a given city agree to pay RP for "advice" about rents? Could it be that landlords make more $$$ using RP?

What does this have to do with the fires in L.A.? This is a made-up MAGA narrative of nonsense crafted to enrage the faithful. If CA allocated more water to Big Ag, that would make the Republicans happy, but how would that improve firefighting in Los Angeles?

The hydrants in Pacific Palisades are fed from three, one-million-gallon, tanks in the hills above. Firefighters have been draining the system faster than the pumps can refill the tanks. The system was designed decades ago, long before climate change was understood.

CA reservoirs are all at historically high levels. There's plenty of water in L.A., they just can't pump it up to the Palisades fast enough.

No, that's the Porcelain Spring.

Yes. Exactly. The First Amendment restricts our Congress from abridging speech, or "the press." I don't see an exception for "press (or a website) owned by a hostile government."

If the First Amendment has an exception for a "hostile foreign government," howabout an exception for a "hostile domestic newspaper?" If Biden can do this to tiktok, because tiktok's owner is "hostile," then can Trump do the same to the NYTimes, because "the NYTimes is hostile" to Trump?

I agree. However, the First Amendment says only that our Congress "shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I see no exception for speech or "press" from hostile foreign governments.

And, yes, China is a hostile foreign government. Don't get me wrong; I don't approve of Xi, or the Chinese government, or the Great Firewall, and I don't use tiktok. I'm not terribly fond of Facebook or X, either. (I am a bit partial to Slashdot...) And, for the sake of discussion, let's agree that China pushes propaganda via tiktok.

My concern is: if our Federal Government can ban tiktok, can the same logic be used to ban Facebook, or the NYTimes, or X, or Slashdot?

Doesn't that also happen on Facebook?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/04/facebook-election-misinformation-capitol-riot/

Alternatively, would the Romania elections problem "go away" if tiktok wasn't Chinese?

I'm skeptical of the "pirate radio" comparison; radio involves finite, shared radio spectrum, and if it wasn't regulated, it would devolve into chaos, and become unusable. And "unusable" is definitely not in the public interest. I see no First Amendment issue here.

Can you point out an example of information warfare? What has tiktok done?

I'll note that I'm no fan of the Chinese government, nor do I use tiktok. But I don't understand why is tiktok illegal if it is owned by the Chinese government, but legal if owned by somebody else?

This just "feels like" a do-over of Shenck vs. U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

I still don't understand how the federal government can ban tiktok when the government is restricted by the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/knight-institute-comments-on-challenge-to-federal-tiktok-ban

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/06/dc-circuit-upholds-tiktok-ban-in-alarming-ruling-claiming-it-actually-enhances-free-speech/

I've never used TikTok, but if the government can do this to TikTok, they can do this to anyone. Like, Slashdot.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/...

I've never heard of Finastra before; when I first mis-read it, I though it said "Finasco."

I believe that's what Pacific Gas and Electric ("PG&E") charges for gas and electricity.

PG&E covers most of California, including most of the SF Bay Area, and much of the outer-LA area, plus most of the huge areas in betwee. There are other companies in southern CA: Southern Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric. I assume these others charge less than PG&E.

Better than those are the municipal power outfits. In the Silicon Valley, the cities of Santa Clara ("Silicon Valley Power") and (I believe) Palo Alto have their own municipal, non-profit power companies for electricity. There's SMUD in Sacramento, and REU in Redding. Los Angeles has their Department of Water and Power ("DWP").

I don't know what Santa Clara, Palo Alto, or Los Angeles charge, but I assume it's less than PG&E. Last I checked, SMUD uses time-of-day metering, so charges vary, but IIRC, SMUD tops out around $0.36/kWh in the evening. Redding does not have time-of-day metering, and charges $0.15/kWh all the time.

I believe part of the reason that PG&E is so expensive is the legal settlements they paid after their equipment failures caused some forest fires and 85 people died ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). PG&E declared bankruptcy over that ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). Also, PG&E went bankrupt years ago as an unintentional side-effect of some badly-drafted deregulation imposed by the state ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).

Interestingly, AFAIK, none of those municipal utilities supply gas. PG&E supplies the natural gas in most of CA.

I looked at the first linked article, and it refers to research (that I didn't look at) that correlated temperature with death rates. Many temperature/death-rate graphs were shown, each with a local "death minima," at that "just right" temperature where death is minimized.

The linked article makes no attempt to show that "cold days cause more death"; it just shows that "cold days correlate with more death." It might be (speculating here) that there are simply more cold days every year than "just right" or "too hot" temperature days. The linked article didn't say.

We're all well aware that hot weather will cause more death. The linked article does not show that cold weather causes more death, nor that warming will lower death rates.

A man with one watch knows what time it is.

A man with two watches is never sure.