Removing section 230 protections isn't the fix. Once you start opening that door there's no closing it. It absolutely will be done unfairly. Algorithmically displaying content has legitimate uses. The question is, how do you regulate only the harmful ones? I like seeing what I'm looking for, so I want algorithmic content, I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

They aren't. There's a reservoir, a pump, and an injector, besides the SCR. But the SCR is already present, it's just a little different in systems with DEF.

That's for freezing conditions. There's a resistor in the reservoir, big whoop.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

Indeed, it's extremely laughable to think that Muslims are all Democrats, when they are part of a conservative faith. It's exactly like believing that evangelical Christians are all Democrats.

Unfortunately, most people aren't going to take the step to figure out that their conservatism is just like the conservatism of the people rejecting them.

Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

We can and should regulate how the creators of social media networks take advantage of their positions of authority and control. There is absolutely, positively, and in every other way no reason why we can not or should not do that. There is no principle under which a hands-off approach makes sense.

The gears of justice grind slowly. This is by design. When you go fast, you break things. And also, no. The state didn't make them do it.

Yes, you could. But that's not the case. They know and have known. We've talked about that here a bunch. They willfully conduct psychological experiments on users and monitor the impact.

That's why there's a case... no, wait, thousands of cases.

Facebook willfully psychologically manipulates people into vulnerable emotional states in order to increase engagement, they take advantage of that by knowingly spreading false information and have actually reduced the number of people they have working on reducing the false information and replaced them with automated systems which produce false positives which punish users who are conforming to their rules and standards, but seemingly do nothing to prevent actual violations.

NOx is solved with DEF. The problem is, DEF systems which don't suck aren't solved...

To get the full power out of InDesign takes a lot of learning, but it's still recognizable and comprehensible to someone who worked on Pagemaker on a classic mac. You do have to understand typesetting to understand how to use it, but if you don't, you also probably don't need it.

Once you got that much money get out of the way and let somebody else take a crack at it. I mean look at bezos and muskrat. What have they done for us lately? It's pretty clear once a billionaire gets up to the top they stop being useful. At best you get one good idea out of somebody and that's really stretching things.

You had your turn now get out of the way and let somebody else try

Now instead of attacking the basic concept of taxes because you lost that argument you're retreating to a different argument. This is a Gish scallop or a Mote and bailey. It's a logical fallacy because you're losing the argument.

You don't have a choice. You will have a government and it will be a large powerful Central government. That's because government is like a nuclear bomb. Once we invented it we were stuck with it. It's too useful. You cannot put that genie back in the bottle.

So instead of throwing up your hands and giving up like a fucking child you need to be an adult and actually fix the God damn problem. And then you need to do a fucked ton of work on maintenance so that when the systems start to break down, and they will just like your car breaks down, you have to get up off your ass and fix it. And that's your life. Over and over and over again fixing shit that other people try to break because human beings are not perfect animals.

Being an adult sucks. But you don't have any other options

Well, they've had a few accidents, but nothing really serious. The cost though... They did it thinking it would be cheap, and it turned out to be the opposite. And then they screwed up their environmental goals by promoting diesel cars, again not knowing that they were so bad when the decision was made.

In 2026 it's not just renewables that have changed the landscape, it's the EU. Energy independence isn't a big deal at the member level. Although arguably it never was for France, because if you recall the EU was formed out of coal agreements with Germany, that were designed to make the two countries so dependent on each other that war would be impossible.

Because if you're not stupid you don't have a single supplier. Even if one of the other suppliers isn't quite up to snuff you make sure that they get up to snuff so that you don't have a single supplier. Monopolies suck.

No, you don't have to decide if you want access to electrical power or not. I was there when it happened, the lights did not go out. Japan shut down all nuclear reactors, unplanned, and the electricity stayed on. The electric trains kept running. The price went up and people were asked to save energy, but it proved beyond any doubt that nuclear was absolutely not necessary for Japan to keep power on.

These days we don't need nuclear at all, we have much better and cheaper alternatives. We can install them at scale too. China generated, not installed nameplate, not counting wasted energy because capacity was already met, actually generated and fed into the grid as much new renewable electricity in 2025 as the whole of Germany consumed in total. On top of what they already had. And they are on track to install even more new capacity this year, and the storage to go with it.

Most countries don't have nuclear weapons and seem to be doing okay.

Ukraine, for example. A nuclear state attacked them, and Ukraine is winning. Of course Russia didn't nuke Ukraine, because that would be suicide. Similarly, if Ukraine had kept and maintained its nuclear weapons, it wouldn't have used them, because that would have been suicide.

One of the things they usually fail to mention with SMRs is that you still need a containment building that can survive hydrogen explosions, like the ones that destroyed the Fukushima containment buildings.

There is a parallel there. The Soviets decided that they could save money because the probability of those reactors failing was very small. The Japanese built to international standards, which were also set far too low to contain those explosions, because containing them would have cost a lot more money and the risk of meltdown was judged to be extremely low.

In both cases, the risks were known, and in both cases they were downplayed by the people making the decisions. Soviet or democratic, both systems failed.

A thing that often gets missed is that a lot of Adobe's users are extremely non-technical. They did not learn how to use graphics software, or DTP software; they learned how to use Photoshop, or InDesign. My mother was not a stupid person, but she was basically allergic to technology, and yet she managed to transition from doing physical pasteup with hand-done separations to working on a Macintosh and using Illustrator and Pagemaker. (This was long ago enough that Aldus was still a thing, and the Macintosh was a IIci with 5MB and a 8*30 non-GC card to run the Mac Two-Page Mono display.) And while InDesign is not quite as easy to use as Aldus Pagemaker was, because it does more stuff now, it's still quite comprehensible. I've used it for some projects, and it was still easy enough.