Ok, fine. I'll just cry at work. Thanks.

The data centers people hate are the ones powering the AI slop engines, not the Internet. There's a reason traditional data centers never bothered anyone.

And short-lived. More and more workplaces are charging the actual cost of the charge. We should expect this to continue as more people get EVs and the cost of subsidizing the fueling of commuter vehicles gets more public visibility and the value is required to be imputed/taxed as employee income.

First, the Maverick IS a truck. It's a SMALL pickup truck. You probably want a MEDIUM pickup trick, like the lightning. Or maybe one that doesn't have a back seat.

Ford says:

1. It will have a similar footprint to the Maverick
2. It will have the same passenger space of a RAV4

Ford hasn't said:
1. Towing capability
2. Bed size

1. Climate Change: This is decided science. The only reason we're barreling toward climate disaster is the people in political power. We were making progress on this front for decades prior to 2016.

2. Tobacco: You mean, the science came out and contradicted the lies of tobacco company, there's been a 70% reduction in smoking in adults and an >80% reduction with youth? Vaping is still an issue, but it's significantly less harmful than smoking.

3. Purdue Pharma: Purdue pharma was officially dissolved in May of this year after being successfully sued for >$7B. It's now comparably difficult to obtain opioids, particularly in the excessive amounts that fed the start of the crisis.

4. Boeing: What about them?

Pro-Tip: Life gets better when you acknowledge the improvements being made by the hard-working people around you and don't just focus on the headlines.

Actually, it DID work for climate change and smoking.

We made absolutely MASSIVE strides in reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change leading up to the early 2000s and then the US GOP started actively fighting against the science. Looking at California alone, they went from a huge amount of smog days per year to them being rare. (https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/publications/50-years-of-progress)

And the decided science empowered social change to MASSIVELY reduce the incidence of smoking in America. (https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco-trends-brief/overall-smoking-trends)

People will not make MASSIVE, generational change without sufficient reason to believe that that change is necessary.

35% of University of California students receive the Pell Grant -- federal funding for the lowest income undergraduates. The UC population isn't at risk of losing "mommy and daddy" endowment donations. Discipline can work well-- but it needs to be WIDELY ADVERTISED discipline so as to invoke a strong deterrent effect.

You're right about the risks of just expelling, though. All public universities are exceedingly concerned about student "retention" and are very slow to actually dis-enroll a student. There's just not much back-stop funding from research grants thanks to this federal administration's new policies.

That's very idealist, but not in line with the pragmatic realities of education.

1. Most people want to HAVE learned, but are unwilling to go through the process of studying and repetition to actually learn.
2. We set up massive educational system to ENSURE that people learn. Those systems are held accountable when their students DON'T learn.
3. Checkpoints are set up throughout a curriculum to force students to learn if not for their own sake, then for the sake of a grade that will influence whether to progress in the educational system.
4. Remove those checkpoints and more students will fail. And then the educational system fail. And then there's no more advanced education.

Congrats -- Welcome back to serfdom.

These are not children. These are students at a top-tier research university. They will become doctors, engineers, and career mathematicians.

Their job is to learn.

Do consider that we're talking about math at a top-tier research university.

Math classes at a University of California campus will range between 100 and 350 students. One-on-one discussions are not a functional realistic option.

Homework is graded to force students to practice because they wouldn't practice otherwise.

That's the difficulty of education. EVERYONE recognizes the need for it and almost everyone is grateful for having been educated, but 98% of the people receiving education would rather be doing something else.

Very few people are driven by the intrinsic rewards of education.

Tragedy of the commons isn't a problem with human nature, it's a problem with the incentives in a capitalist economic system. Look at what happened with the real commons - individuals who were using it decided to organize and regulate sustainable use of the commons. Only corporations are selfish and short-sighted enough to fulfill the theory's prediction.

It may not be intentional anti-environmental shilling (in general, with sinij in particular it's quite clear that it is), but it is practically indistinguishable from it. The best time to build nuclear was 50-60 years ago, but the second best time, at this point, is probably never. Renewables with storage are vastly cheaper and vastly faster to build. Building nuclear today means locking up resources for decades that could've been used to rapidly deploy far greater amounts of cheap clean power instead. There are only a few niche uses where nuclear could still make sense and they are steadily being eaten away by renewables with storage.

I think who you and GP are looking for are the Black Panthers. They're still around and didn't take kindly to the ICE goon squad.