The problem in California is that private lawyers realized they could sue almost anybody for failure to warn about carcinogen risk. The result was that everybody (both private individuals, companies, and government facilities) stuck a warning on virtually anything. The initial intention of the law was good but very badly worded.
If this were remotely true then wind turbines would be getting smaller each year.
Not sure what you are getting at, but the landing strip does not have to be right at the base of the windmill. Trucks will still be used to move the blades from where the airplane lands to there. The distance is a lot shorter however.
I'm not very clear why helicopters can't be used though.
You seem incapable of reading comments before writing your fantasy about what they say.
Actually you better have a stealth airplane. And everybody on board better turn off their phones.
Someone pointed out some differences in Idiocracy: a primary plot point was that the President actively recruited a cabinet member for intelligence, without knowing what that cabinet member would recommend, and willingly followed the possibly unexpected advice provided by that cabinet member, and actively and accurately observed and judged results both when the cabinet member made a correct and when they made an incorrect decision.
Hmm. Lost the end of my sentence there somehow:
And, of course, the companies that are going out of business are also the ones who are least likely to spend time filing out a survey
The BLS monthly numbers are always off when the underlying economy is changing rapidly, because of the "birth death problem", meaning that when large numbers of companies are being created or closed (born or died), the surveys that provide the quick data are guaranteed to be quite far off because the surveys go to companies that are already establish, i.e. those that weren't just born and didn't just die. So when there's a lot of market change, they're sampling the part of the market that is changing less. This means the estimates are off, and the faster the economy is changing the further off they are.
A related issue is that the survey results are only a sample, but BLS needs to extrapolate to the entire population of businesses -- but they don't actually know how many businesses there are in the country, much less how many fit into each of the size / revenue / industry buckets. So their extrapolation necessarily involves some systematic guesswork. In normal, stable economic times good guesses are easy because it's not going to be that much different from the prior year and will likely have followed a consistent trend. But when the economy is changing rapidly, that's not true, so the guesses end up being further off the mark.
Second, it's worse when things are turning for the worse, because of something kind of like "survey fatigue", but not. The problem is that when lots of the surveyed companies are struggling, they're focused on fighting for their existence and don't have time to bother filling out voluntary government reporting forms. It's not that they're tired of surveys, but that they just don't have the time and energy to spare. And, of course, the companies that are going out of business are also the ones w
The phone thing is a red herring, because these BLS surveys are not conducted over the phone.
A new issue compounding the above is that the BLS was hit hard by DOGE cuts and early retirements. They've lost over 20% of their staff, and the loss in experience and institutional knowledge is far larger than that, because the people who were fired and the people who took the buyouts tended to be very senior. So a lot of the experience that would be used to improve the estimates has walked out the door.
Anyway, the core problem is that the economy is going into the toilet, really fast. The BLS didn't break out how much of the 911,000 fewer new jobs were added 2024 vs 2025, but I'll bet a big percentage were after Trump started bludgeoning American businesses with tariffs. Most of that pain won't really be known until the 12-month report next year, because the monthly reports are going to continue underestimating the rate of change. Well, assuming the BLS staff isn't forced to cook the books, in which case we'll just never know.
It is considerably safer to treat stop signs as yield signs for (human-powered) bicycles. By far the most dangerous thing at intersections is being hit by cross traffic while they are moving at the low speed that they have to from a stop. Some states have decided to rewrite the laws for yield-on-red.
Some e-bikes certainly have enough acceleration that this is not a problem. IMHO these should be subject to motorcycle regulations and this also means they must travel in the car lanes.
Socialism with American Characteristics
Iowa's rolling farm fields of coffee
Absolutely. We should just apply carbon taxes (and tariffs) to internalize the externality, so the playing field is level, and let the market work.
You state agreement that the government should not be putting a thumb on the scale in favor of BEVs and then express support for carbon taxes. It appears you are confused on what it means to have the government stay out of the free market.
No, you just don't understand externalities and the necessary role of government in internalizing them.
Their rationale is total horseshit and it's plain to see. Everything about this screams, "but our profit margins!" and an endless stream of crocodile tears.
As I see it there's nothing stopping a competitor to put an end to BMW's profits by offering BEVs that make anything with an internal combustion engine look like expensive junk. Putting a government thumb on the scale to favor BEV makers is restricting fair competition, that is the government picking who makes a profit and so is open to all kinds of corruption.
Absolutely. We should just apply carbon taxes (and tariffs) to internalize the externality, so the playing field is level, and let the market work.
Second, it means that things that inherently use lots of power, like arc furnaces, become unprofitable, and suddenly you end up depending on imports for all of your metal. You end up storing your data on servers in third-world countries because the server farms cost too much here. You end up with more and more businesses moving overseas to avoid the extra costs.
This is why carbon taxes must be accompanied by carbon tariffs. That also incentivizes the foreign seller to reduce their own emissions (or fake it -- enforcement wouldn't always work, but it only needs to work most of the time).
It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.
