Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - US Court of Appeals upends 50 years of Environmental Law (yalejreg.com) 3

magzteel writes: In "D.C. Circuit Upends CEQ’s NEPA Rule", the Yale Journal on Regulation writes on the Marin Audubon v FAA decision:

This holding upends almost 5 decades of administrative practice, as CEQ has been issuing regulations since the 1970s. The problem is that NEPA does not provide express rulemaking authority, and the court did not find it to be implied, either (slip. op. at 16). The court looked beyond NEPA to the other statutes listed in EO 11,991, which refer to CEQ but do not confer rulemaking authority beyond those rules “related to a fund used to finance the Office’s projects and research studies” (slip. op. at 17).

As reported in RedState: https://redstate.com/streiff/2...

This decision throws the entire environmental regulation scheme governing the federal government into chaos. I suspect that many of the CEQs regulations will be reissued by other agencies, but after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see The Supreme Court Firebombs the Administrative State and Tells Congress to Get Off Its Butt and Work) that slew the medusa called "Chevron deference," the survival of those replacement regulations is not assured."


Comment Re:We didn't really elect them. (Score 0, Troll) 120

So 15 million fewer democrats voted but the same number of republicans voted.

In every election in the last 20 years the democrats got roughly 65m votes. Except 2020 where 15m extra ballots got counted. Then this year we went back to ~65m again. Where did the extra 15m come from in 2020 is the question everyone should ask, not why aren't they voting this year.

That's the question all right. Somehow they materialized and just like that they disappeared. Not suspicious at all

Comment Flawed data from a skewed test? (Score 1) 72

From the article:
A closer look at the design of the study, however, might raise some doubt about how useful the findings are.

Two companies voluntarily dropped out in the course of the six months, and two others had to be excluded from the evaluation. Of the remaining 41 participating companies, only about a third reduced weekly working hours by an entire day.

Around 20% reduced hours by between 11% and 19% per day, while about half cut work time by less than 10%, or roughly four hours per week. So, in total only in 85% of the cases did employees get a full day off.

The limited number of participating companies also makes the study hardly representative of Germany and its more than 3 million registered firms. This has been because the project struggled to find enough interested employers since it was first mooted two years ago, said Marika Platz, because part-time work is already relatively common in Germany.

Labor market expert Enzo Weber is skeptical about the pilot project, saying that companies participating in such trials are generally already positive toward the 4-day workweek, making them an unrepresentative sample of the economy.

In addition, the researcher at the University of Regensburg and the Institute for Employment Research in Germany, told DW the project's productivity gains may not be due to shorter hours alone, as processes and organizational structures were also modified.

Weber also believes the positive results might not be sustainable due to the increased work compression that will likely come at the expense of employees' social, communicative, and creative aspects. "The effects often don't manifest immediately but rather in the medium term," Weber said, noting that those studies generally cover only a relatively short period of six months.

According to Steffen Kampeter, CEO of Germany's Employers Association BDA, companies that operate in international markets consciously chose not to participate in the trial. He also questions the productivity gains, arguing that "a four-day week with full pay is just a significant wage increase, which most companies cannot afford."

Comment Re:It would be a dick move (Score 1) 388

Since Trump is a Hitler loving fascists but If the editors were on board with Trump they would have every right. I just wouldn't touch their news coverage with a 10 ft pole after that.

If you thought that was a gotcha it's not.

Name the last Republican for president that the Washington Post has endorsed. You can't, because it is a Democrat shill rag.

Comment Re:It's not the right call (Score 3, Insightful) 388

I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this move is okay. Just do it.

If Bezos were telling the truth — and clearly, he's not — he would see to it that the paper had no "opinion" section. You know, so it could make an honest attempt at reporting the news instead of trying to influence people by publishing the opinions and reasoning of various movers and shakers.

The "Opinion" section is not a problem, opinion is not news. The problem is the "News" section is now "Opinion"

Comment Re:Jokes on them. (Score 1, Troll) 235

Are parents who threaten violence merely "outspoken" now?

They didn't threaten violence. The school board members just didn't like being taken to task in school board meetings so they contacted the DOJ. The DOJ acted on baseless accusations and put the parents on a terror watch list

Comment Re:Jokes on them. (Score 1, Troll) 235

>

"... but rather concentrate on tracking parents going to school board meetings to inquire and protest against all the woke non-sense taught in schools in the USA nowadays."

So you're even worse than the gaslighters that wrote the article.

Are you unaware that the DOJ and the FBI targeted outspoken parents? https://www.usnews.com/news/ed...

Comment An identity as the new home for prestige shows? (Score 1) 137

I've had Apple TV+ a few times as a free trial and saw no reason to continue it. I have no idea what "prestige shows" they are talking about. I thought "Masters of the air" was ok, but nothing "prestige". Maybe the reason nobody watches their stuff is they looked at it and it just wasn't that interesting.

Comment Re:Tax revenue? (Score 1) 522

What happens to the Petro tax revenue when everyone goes EV?

Would the cost of an EV car ownership go up when governments need their money again..

My state now charges EV owners $250/year tax when they renew their registration

Comment Re:Gotta love the hypocrisy (Score 2, Informative) 78

and now tell us what is theirs infant dead rate! sadly most of those kids don't reach adulthood

Infants are dying at a higher rate since a woman's right to privacy was revoked by the Supreme Court.

Earlier research – spurred by a CNN investigative report - found that infant mortality spiked in Texas after a 6-week abortion ban took effect in 2021, and experts say the new data suggests that the impacts of the bans and restrictions enacted by some states post-Dobbs have been large enough to affect broader trends.

“This is evidence of a national ripple effect, regardless of state-level status,” said Dr. Parvati Singh, an assistant professor of epidemiology with The Ohio State University College of Public Health and lead author of the new study.

In other words, those who claim to be "pro-life" are really pro-birth because they don't care more kids are dying thanks to their efforts.

That's a bullshit study being cited by CNN for the usual political reasons. Here, from the article, an example, of the amazing work that went into it: "They found that infant mortality was higher than usual in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected.". That means nothing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...