To be fair, you may want to also factor in subsidies the US Government has given the fossil fuel industry, about $5B/year for (checks notes) the last 105 years (including $20B last year)

Let's not be hasty. When Biden called for this, his own party stood and applauded while the "conservative" half of the chamber sat on their hands as if at a funeral.

Thus, the "conservative" course of action is to buy the semiconductors required to defend our country from an increasingly combative China, from Taiwan.

EDIT: The Chinese government has strongly recommended I update my post to reflect inaccuracies in my understanding of geography. The post should read as follows:

Thus, the "conservative" course of action is to buy the semiconductors required to defend our country from an increasingly combative China, from China.

Sad times, indeed. The problem with conspiracies is they involve multiple people. And government conspiracies tend to operate like government agencies. Right to very the day Putin got his panties in a twist we heard, daily, about the next leaked memo, the next subpoenad text message, the next bit of juicy testimony from a staffer or janitor or one of the hundreds of other low-level employees about whatever the former US President was up to. VIPs can't make the government do anything without the hundreds of witnesses whose jobs are to translate VIP instructions into the red tape that the beaurocracy executes like so many punch cards. At almost every step a paper trail is created, We're still seeing the drip, drip, drip of evidence despite POTUS and top executives' explicit and repeated efforts to shred, destroy, and encrypt away all evidence.

So, back to the topic at hand, do I understand correctly that you believe the US government, notwithstanding a change in administration, continues even today to execute, in cooperation with ANOTHER, even larger, foreign and adversarial government an international global conspiracy. And so, when confronted by two different groups of scientists and professionals from multiple countries employed by dozens of organizations, unbeknownst to the other group, reaching similar, reasonably statiscally significant conclusions unbeknownst to each other, you conclude it means nothing and that we are no closer to understanding, even suggesting it further reinforces the literal conspiracy theory?

Unless I've completely missed one or more gigantic trumpeting elephants in the room, forgive me but this reads like hand-crafted, artisan-level, textbook tin-foil-hat wearing bullshit.

Everyone loves to bitch and moan about COVID restrictions when it involves yelling at an 81-year-old doctor on the boob tube. But I don't see Ron DeSandass performing public melodrama when it comes to a certain trillion-dollar Mouse and the world he inhabits. If the Gov didn't insist otherwise one might suspect he's motivated by something other than altruism!

I don't see how you conclude that when the article you linked to says:

Now there are obviously some semantic tricks being played by the phrase "energy independence" here, but it also suggests that, if anything, the US tends to import crude oil and exports more refined product, such as gasoline. So in any case there doesn't seem to be much argument that we need to import "to fill up gas tanks."

Maybe, maybe not. Is the suggestion here that we file this in the same bin as "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US?"

Right, when will people ever learn the folly of signing away their individual bargaining power? The mistake here, by what Forbes describes as "several" employees, was clearly their ludicrous attempt at group representation. If only they were smarter. Can you imagine the look on those Google Execs' faces the moment they were suddenly confronted with the ultimate choice: trying to continue to operate a company the size of Google with only 99.999% of its workforce, versus acceding to the bargaining prowess of emplyee #97,401 and his/ber band of merry men? Heads would most certainly roll, amirite?

/ It's just that some commenters here seem confused about which ones. Maybe go read that linked article again.

The "fake news" here is Zuckerberg essentially trying to deny that Facebook "censors" users' posts, when in fact Facebook currently makes content moderation decisions countless times per day, according to an ever-shifting set of rules that are 100% within his ability to control.

As an aside, the fact that he also uses his ethereal high-horse to potty-mouth Twitter's attempts at moderation shows what an opportunistic little bitch he is.

Just remember that, as in the case of the chief executive's personal life, all Trump administration commitments are short-lived.

... on http://www.foxnews.com./

The conservative website "The Washington Free Beacon" already admitted eight months ago that it hired (funded by a "major Republican donor", no less) the research firm that produced the infamous dossier before it ever made it into the hands of the Democrats. But I guess even Republican admissions are Fake News when they don't agree with your agenda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

Agreed. I'd very much to have a means to control my Fire TV from my home automation server (without using the kludgey ADB hack), but they have it locked behind an undocumented, encrypted API that AFAIK is currently only supported by Google and Amazon apps.

I think what CR calls a "security vulnerability" I'd call an "Open API".

We have lots of Congressional oversight! The problem seems more that the "oversight" in question is currently done by a group of plutocrats who recently declared the crimes of pedophilia, sexual assault, obstruction of justice and treason (although NEVER abortion) are actually pretty okay as long as they further their agenda.

My understanding of the situation is that _Equifax_ was hacked. To my knowledge the Social Security Administration, whose official policy is that you should never give your ID number to anyone /except/ the SSA, had nothing to do with this breach.

So while your statements about government being the problem, not using enough security, etc. may well be justified, they had little to do with the actual damages here.

In "macroeconomic terms," retired people continue to provide economic value to a society. For example, providing "free" child care services for their grandchildren (since typically now both parents must work to stay afloat) -- child care being one of the biggest expenses a working family can face. And that's just one example... retired folk frequently volunteer their time toward many different sorts of "economically invisible" endeavors. And, of course, they continue to be consumers, which gives us poor working folk something to do.

Just because retired people don't receive W2's from their corporate overlords doesn't mean they don't contribute to the economy.