Any one of those cases could potentially have been insurmountable if a judge had found in their favor. Like I said, there were fundamental questions of law regarding whether that permit was lawfully issued in the first place.

They took apart the portions that were already built. It was shut down. Spin it however you want; the project was dead at that point.

They would fight it if they thought that him rescinding the permit was unlawful, because the only alternative was losing the money they had already spent building parts of it. They did not, because they believed that given the circumstances, rescinding the permit was lawful. They were potentially correct because of the way that the permit was issued.

Again, they did not. They stopped construction and started tearing it down. There are no plans to try again.

It actually is far off.

A legally issued permit is binding on the government. An illegally issued permit is not. The offshore wind farm permits were legally issued. The Keystone XL permits likely were not.

The legal difference between a permit issued through the usual decades-long approval process and a permit issued in an expedited fashion under executive orders to rush the environmental review to make the project happen is substantial. The legality of that executive order was in question, and the expedited environmental review created serious questions about whether the review met the standards required by federal law. At that point, it became the states' right to challenge the permitting, and they did.

Had they won, the permits would have been rolled back by the courts.

It's been a while so I can't really direct you. When licensing became very uncertain I backed away and haven't done one in a while.

My best advice is to get a good flight controller kit up front so everything works together without a lot of screwing around. Also to read lots of build logs before you do one. And maybe start with a cheap type to build familiarity.

Also any design where you just have arms connected to a central board tends to be flimsy. I started with a SK450 and it's kind of floppy

They deliberately destroyed our public lands to make sure we all had to pay to live and you're here for it

If apple doesn't want to be in the middle of every transaction, they are welcome to stop doing that. No one is forcing them to gatekeep everything.

SLI causes problems with a lot of titles and also isn't available on Linux any longer. (There is still a feature called SLI in the Linux driver but it is NOT SLI.)

You didn't explain why they would need more than 60Hz.

The USA built that by paying for it.

"The C-Suite that you rail against is entirely profit motivated."

You're not wrong, you're just thinking small. That is, not like a member of that clan of jackals.

They are worried about THEIR personal profits, they don't give two fucks about any given corporation. And if you do, you're stupid, because corporations don't have hearts or souls and are literally not capable of caring about you.

As long as they come out looking competent, they will be able to get a job at the next corporation, and secure THEIR profits.

Anything except competent management people and practices and fostering a healthy workplace culture, you mean.

The language won't solve the cultural problems.

OK, I'll grant you a race to the bottom, with tax dollar financing. SpaceX has a better success rate, and also with the incumbent dangers of sole-source cartage.

"The lowest common denominator exists, and they code." ... for Microsoft

Check please!

This is tougher for two reasons.

There is SpaceX, who holds a monopoly without Boeing, as Roscosmos blew up its launch pad facility. You can pick between satan and a devil, SpaceX and Boeing. Pick one. Blue Origin and others try to reach the skies, and simply aren't there. Meanwhile, the ISS goes around the earth, needing service SOMEHOW.

NASA really wants an alternative; they may or not have let Boeing slide in desperation. A single vendor space flight program is in no one's interest.

Whether you agree or disagree with the politically influenced programs, maybe or not funded in any given year for political gains and defeats, the ISS is up there, a moonshot or Marsshot just a dream as these programs are now farther and farther on the backburner.

Summary: Boeing proved themselves second-rate. NASA is sole-sourced to SpaceX. Public policy is at the root of the problem; the vendors are skunks with a pipeline to one of the fattest treasuries on earth.

Pulling that permit might have been legally questionable, but the real story is way more complex than that, because the legality of the permit was in question and had been under scrutiny by the courts for the entire period in question. Their decision to start building in spite of the permit potentially being illegal was a mistake, and the losses from such a mistake were entirely their responsibility.

I find it difficult to imagine how they could have come to such a dubious conclusion. Oil sands are some of the dirtiest oil you can get, and encouraging the use of oil sands refining before other, cleaner sources of oil is not sound environmental policy. And making that oil easier to import into the U.S. would doubtless encourage more extraction.

A permit, once denied, isn't generally eligible for being reinstated without correcting the issues noted in denying it. They did not correct anything. Instead President Trump issued a permit himself outside of normal regulatory channels, overriding the decision of those regulatory channels, with a complete lack of environmental review, likely violating dozens of federal laws. The legality of such a presidentially issued "permit" is dubious at best, and that legality was being actively contested in the courts at the time, precisely because there's no precedent for a president having any legal authority to circumvent regulatory authority and issue a permit that violates environmental protection laws just because he wants to.

There's a reason that the oil companies did not bother to fight the Biden administration's decision to rescind the permit, and simply shut down the project. They knew that the legality of the entire project was highly questionable, and that they had spent money building parts of it with full knowledge that the permits were being challenged in court and could be found invalid, at which point they would have to tear it all down. They baked that risk into their calculations and decided to go forward anyway in hopes of a windfall, and they lost.

Nothing like that is the case for offshore wind farms, to the best of my knowledge. They were permitted through the usual regulatory channels, and there was no plausible reason to expect that such legally issued permits would be illegally rescinded on the whims of a wannabe dictator.

So it's not really the same thing. It's not even close.

The corruption runs deep with Trump Inc.