Nope. It was on broadcast news, they thought it interesting he was talking about the right to repair farm equipment and cars while at a Deere factory.

They are EOL'd because of the national defense issue. Otherwise the turbines would be maintained, upgraded, etc. These are structure designed for long term maintenance and continued use, they are not disposable systems as you seem to be implying.

Nope. The US DoD has been objecting to these farms due to national security under both Dem and Repub administrations. The difference is one side ignoring national defense, the other supporting it.

The USA did it. China promised, and it seems to be failing to keep those promises, and playing metric games to hide it. As the citations demonstrate.

https://www.heritage.org/globa...
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
https://www.instituteforenergy...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Nope. From Google: "Looking at the multi-year timeframe from 2020 to 2025, total national greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. decreased overall"

They cut nothing. They slowed the growth of CO2 emissions.

The last time I professionally wrote assembly language was when working for a game studio. Early 2000s. Today, the hand tuning is done in SIMD, which would mostly likely be done via intrinsics in C/C++ code rather than traditional assembly. The latter often lets the compiler to a better scheduling job.

Nope. I recall Trump on video recently talking about how he favors right to repair, how he pardoned some people successfully prosecuted for repairing their own equipment. I think he was at a Deere factory.

You are missing the actual point. Both Biden and Trump are in favor of right to repair.

The OP is absolutely WRONG suggesting Trump is against it.

For such advanced parts I would be reluctant to go 3rd party. I can still save on labor if I have to buy such parts from the manufacturer.

Every company ought to always be required to make technical documentation and replacement components available for their products.

I just had this on a much smaller scale: a cordless Bosch vacuum cleaner. It almost certainly needed a battery replacement. Nowhere on the internet is there a diagram of how to disassemble it. Remove all the visible screws and...nothing. Finally get it apart, and: the seven batteries (in series) are installed in such a way as to be very difficult to remove. Of course, there is no information on what their specs are, and as far as I can tell, Bosch won't sell you replacements. Ultimately, we threw it away and bought a new one (from a brand that does sell replacement parts).

It's absolutely irritating to have to trash an appliance that just needs a simple repair. This is where government regulation would actually be important.

It's probably just what browsers are reporting, not what OS is really running on the hardware.

They report what the browser reports, some browsers may still use OS X despite Apple's renaming to macOS

Why do you think the Democrats will be agains this? Surely they would not oppose this merely because Trump is a big advocate for the right to repair.

Actually Trump is personally behind the right to repair. From Google:

"President Donald Trump is actively championing the Right to Repair movement, focusing heavily on cars and agricultural equipment. In late June 2026, he signed a White House Presidential Memorandum directing the EPA to clarify regulations and ease restrictions on consumers repairing their own vehicles and using aftermarket parts.Trump's push includes several key initiatives and actions:

The "Freedom to Fix" Memo: He directed the EPA to consider deprioritizing civil penalties for vehicle owners attempting to fix their own cars in good faith and to reduce reliance on the California Air Resources Board for approving aftermarket parts.

Prior Action for Farmers: This directive builds on an initiative he signed earlier in the year that affirmed the right of farmers to repair their own tractors and off-road equipment.

Executive Clemency: The administration has issued pardons for mechanics and business owners targeted in federal crackdowns involving emissions and vehicle modifications.

Industry Pushback: Trump has publicly stated that executives from major automakers like Ford and General Motors have pushed back on these measures, citing concerns over cybersecurity, safety, and Clean Air Act compliance."

Getting access to specialized tools and spare parts is a win. And if there is a large enough market for it, then 3rd party tools and parts will become available.

I have an 15 year old car. The 3rd brake light lens cracks. The entire assembly has to be replaced. I can buy a $200 official factory part or a $50 3rd party part. According to review the 3rd party fits well and works. If the factory over changes, someone else will see a market opportunity.

I think the 10 years only applies to FTC supervision, not the expectation of the right to repair.

I'm describing the underlying motivation, which is focused on those of more modest "ability to pay" as wiki phrases it:
"Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence on people with a lower ability to pay"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In truth, being motivated by wealthy, rather than the modest, is the uncommon perspective, and a political tell.

Your hypothetical ended at 50K. The point is to setup for the question: "We would need a new rationale, a new justification, for these tax brackets. What would you suggest the justification be? Hopefully something reasonable to the voters of the political left, center, and right so that it is plausible."

I think the answer to this question is very important.

At a point it does become punitive, when the "ability to pay" is no longer an inconvenience. Consider income levels A and B, both wealthy enough that a 35% tax rate would be nothing more than a minor inconvenience of either. However A is charged 30% and B 35%. What is the motivation other than emotions such as envy? That is what I mean as punitive. Again, the new justification for tax brackets as we move away from those of modest incomes is key here.

Google puts the date as late 1940s: "Tax scholars and economic historians identify the post-World War II era as the turning point when the US tax code began its transformation into an abnormally complex entity. High marginal tax rates and broad economic bases incentivized politicians to offer targeted deductions and exemptions, turning the tax code into a vehicle to reward supporters and subsidize favored industries"