The "as much as possible" phrase is an unclosable back door; if you want to keep data centers from using bigger wallets to pull power away from residents, you prohibit data centers from being connected to the local power grid; if a data center needs power, it has to provide its own.

Agreed; I don't think that this would apply to something like an MMORPG, where if the bill was carried to a logical extreme, would require the publisher to keep at least one server alive indefinitely, with server maintenance and other associated costs in perpetuity. In particular, the carveout listed that would exclude "completely free games" and games "offered solely for the duration of a subscription" creates some confusion, in that a game like an MMORPG that is free to download and install, but has both a free-to-play option and a subscription option, could be argued to not fall clearly into either carveout and therefore obligates the publisher to keep the game alive. If the courts (where something like this would inevitably wind up), I predict that what will happen is that we'll see publishers operating an MMORPG type game that requires a server to function making the game completely free as a precursor to shutting it down, thereby putting it in the "completely free game" exclusion and protecting them from having to keep a server live indefinitely.

I want to see Google's HIPAA disclosure document for their Google Health app. If it does not clearly spell out that any PHI stored in the app is contained in the app and will not, as required under HIPAA, be shared within Google for other uses, or sold out of Google entirely, then it will be a warm day in Niflheim before they see me using their product.

And because the meta for YouTube is to pump out as many videos as possible, so that a channel owner has more 'content' for YouTube to be jamming ads into, from which the channel owner gets a sliver of payback from, there is a constant drive to push new videos out as fast as possible, so anything that slows down publishing new videos gets kicked to the wayside. The channels that use AI narration just push the script through an AI-driven text-to-speech system, and don't care whether it's using the right pronunciation for heterophones (i.e., talking about the bow of a ship and pronouncing it like the 'bow' of 'bow and arrow', when they could go back and tweak the script to have 'bough' instead of 'bow' to force a particular pronunciation, but that's additional work and time), and then just accept YouTube's default captioning because that's easier and faster; adding captions manually would slow down their pushing out slop even further.

So we should apply this maxim whenever we see someone parroting "The science is settled" declaration about climate change?

Ebiikes are a legal workaround loophole for motorcycles.

You realize there are a bunch of homes available for sale in all sorts of places for next to nothing. The problem isn't "housing", it is "housing where people want to live". Declining population in places like Italy have created housing collapse where nice houses aren't sold, and sit empty, and they'll pay you to move into one.

It isn't colonial, it is industrial. The current format of school is that of preparing for a factory workforce. We are post industrial, knowledge/AI/Whatever it will be called workforce.

Educators need to come to grip with getting EVERY child their MAX educational value we can. This means breaking the rows and columns of desks in a classroom, and getting kids their most valuable education they can get. This means some will do much better than others. Talent has gradations. Not everyone can be a Astro Physics expert.

"fair" is subjective. What you think is "fair" isn't really fair. It is objectively unfair to use qualitative terms in discussion of policy.

What would be fair, is that Government live within the means we ALREADY tax out of the public. Cut Spending first. Then, when all cuts that can be made, are made, then MAYBE we can have a discussion on tax increases.

Its Not Your Money.

Envy isn't a virtue.

The problem here, is "fairness" is subjective, not objective.

Use of that particular term is deliberate tug on the emotional center of brains. it works, which is why Progressives ALWAYS use it.

Which is exactly what they said a hundred years ago when they instituted the "income tax".

Rich people will move out. And take their wealth with them.

Taxes are regressive. All of them.

As I posted above, 100kWh of battery charging in 7 minutes requires a delivery of more than 850kW of power to the car. A home circuit rated for 100A at 220V is 22kW, 1/38 the needed power, so the 7 minute charge becomes almost four and a half hours at home, assuming that you have nothing else drawing power.

Edit: Left in the 'k' on the power delivery. 850,000W or 850kW, not 850,000kW. Some things just slip by checking.

If you assume a 100kWh battery, charging it in 7 minutes means that your one charging station has to deliver more than 850,000kW of power to your car. Good luck finding a charging site with megawatt-scale power delivery, and even more luck finding one that isn't splitting that power delivery among eight or sixteen charging stations.

It's all about the visuals. In a Zoom meeting, you can't be seen to be 'actively concerned' about climate change, so you're not going to get the publicity that having reporters photograph you displaying your deep concern about the climate and working to hammer out an agreement to phase out fossil fuels that will wind up honored more in its abrogation than its compliance. From the article: "But the real difference from half a century ago is that fossil fuel alternatives are ready for prime time." -- as Spain clearly demonstrated on 28 April 2025, when wind and solar was supplying 71% of the produced power, and a 5-second interruption caused tripouts across the Iberian peninsula and southern France, resulting in a total power outage lasting ten hours or more.