Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
> Burning fossil fuels is bad.
Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling productivity.
> Shell needs to leave that business in the very long term.
No, they don't NEED to do that. Well, not until the government mandates it anyway. And that's the problem. Perhaps they will leave the business, but they shouldn't until renewable energy becomes more economical than producing fossil fuels. In the meantime, it makes more sense to move production to developing countries so they have the same opportunity we had here to benefit from cheap energy.
> the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers
Sorry, this is one of the worst takes on climate I've ever seen on HN, and the bar here is very low...
Take time to actually study the problem and you will come to the same conclusion: it can only be solved with government intervention. The most efficient government intervention would be a carbon tax set at the estimated social cost of carbon, but that (being a tax) is also extremely politically unpopular.
So we are left with less efficient policies, like outright bans, court orders, expensive subsidies, and emissions caps.
> trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
What the hell? Trees grow using CO2 from the air, and then release that same carbon back when the wood is burned or rots in a forest somewhere. Conserving trees does nothing for climate except for a very small amount of carbon sequestered by tropical forests in their soil.
Meanwhile, oil is 100% carbon that has not been in atmosphere since Jurasic times. If you like Jurasic climates, I guess that's perfectly fine.
To add to this... the government killed the alternative which was nuclear. If the government were serious about ending CO2 emissions they should start building a massive number of nuclear. Hitting Shell like this is a disaster of policy.
>His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
Thanks for that! I do try and pick my comparisons and words carefully. I sometimes fail miserably but i'm glad you picked up on it.
But that was not even a tangential side point of mine. To my mind it was just a pertinent comparison. I'll bear in mind what you said but i'm slightly disappointed.
The Supreme Court will absolutely hear that suit. Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws.
To anyone willing to invest a few hours of his time, he'll find it's quite obvious this election was rife with fraud.
What's sad is that our officials refuse to audit the votes. What's sad is the GOP officials in Wayne County who tried to say there was a problem were doxed and threatened. After that, no one was willing to stand up for the truth. Is there anything more important than making sure every legal vote was counted and illegal votes are discarded? They don't want transparency. That's the issue.
> To anyone willing to invest a few hours of his time, he'll find it's quite obvious this election was rife with fraud.
And yet none of the president's lawyers have actually brought forth even 1 claim of fraud before a judge, despite their rhetoric. Every time when actually in court, they have shied away from claiming accusations of fraud.
So no, not only is it not obvious that the election was rife with fraud, it is in fact extremely obvious that no real amount of fraud has taken place at all (only using "real amount" instead of "any at all" because I'm certain that you'll find 1 or maybe 2 people somewhere who have stolen maybe a dozen votes).
> Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws.
When these special measures were enacted in March to accommodate voting during a pandemic, ample time was given for public comment and legal challenge. Why weren't these suits raised at that time? It seems awfully suspicious that plantiffs had no issue with the mail balloting until they lost the election.
The fact is, those procedures (i.e., "bypassing legislatures") have been implemented precisely for situations like this. Don't get mad just because people actually use them.
> Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence.
That is a misleading interpretation. The cases are being dismissed for procedural reasons, which (depending on the specific case) can amount to "you should have brought your suit sooner" or "your evidence is inadmissible in the court of law" or "even if everything you say is true, you have not demonstrated that you have been harmed." The lawyers aren't being allowed to present evidence because they haven't even managed to demonstrate that they have a reason to present evidence--which is a pretty low bar to clear.
In some cases, it is a jurisdictional ruling. Meaning that the only solution is to appeal to a higher court until you get to the court with jurisdiction to rule on the case. This is largely why these rulings are happening in rapid succession, there's a procedure that must be followed and deadlines to meet.
The Texas Attorney General likely has short circuited this process by filing a claim that can only be resolved by a federal court. And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.
> The Texas Attorney General likely has short circuited this process by filing a claim that can only be resolved by a federal court.
Having read the claim, there is no chance that SCOTUS will do anything other than deny it per curiam.
> And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs
They have not joined as plaintiffs. They filed an amici brief. And it's actually 17. And reading the amici brief, they don't even attempt to justify why Texas has standing in the case, which is the biggest reason to dismiss the case.
> and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.
You're aware that means absolutely nothing? To be refused to be docketed is an exceptionally high bar that requires the court to think you a vexatious litigant. Several thousand cases are docketed a year, and yet there's only around 200-ish that are even considered petitions worthy of commentary, and only 70-ish are actually heard.
The actual bar you're looking for is if SCOTUS accepts the petition which, (for a leave to file motion in original jurisdiction) requires 5 justices to agree to hear the case, and will not be decided before the reply brief is filed tomorrow. I suspect it will be discussed at the regular Friday conference, and likely disposed of in the Monday orders list, although the justices may decide it's important enough to release in a Friday orders list.
> They have not joined as plaintiffs. They filed an amici brief. And it's actually 17. And reading the amici brief, they don't even attempt to justify why Texas has standing in the case, which is the biggest reason to dismiss the case.
You are correct, they are not plaintiffs, but a third of U.S. states are now in support of this action.
I would argue that if a U.S. state has made unconstitutional election changes and thus has conducted an unconstitutional election then other U.S. states not in violation of the constitution have standing to dispute the election results with federal implications in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
This is not totally unprecedented, however, as the Election of 1824 resulted in a contingent election where the candidate with the popular vote lost. [0]
> I would argue that if a U.S. state has made unconstitutional election changes and thus has conducted an unconstitutional election then other U.S. states not in violation of the constitution have standing to dispute the election results with federal implications in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
The process you are talking about involves the US House of Representatives, not suing the states in SCOTUS.
The legal basis for claiming injury in the face of improper elections is the notion of "vote dilution." However, vote dilution cannot happen in the Electoral College by definition. Texas gets 38 of the 538 votes in the Electoral College, and that is true no matter how tight or loose the voting restrictions are in Pennsylvania. The voting power of Texas residents remains unaltered no matter what the voting power of residents in Pennsylvania is. Texas's brief did not persuade me that it had standing to sue (although it does appeal to vote dilution), and none of the other briefs have attempted to address the issue of standing at all.
That the House has had to decide the election is not unprecedented (it has done so on three occasions, 1800, 1824, and 1876, where it delegated its decision to accept the votes to a separate commission). What is unprecedented is a state asking SCOTUS to overturn the results of another state.
Whichever way you slice it, and by whatever technicalities were employed, Bush v. Gore resulted in the Supreme Court deciding how a state could conduct their vote.
What you are saying is plausible, but I think it’s so silly to argue this when we will find out in a few short days whether the SCOTUS will hear it.
> Whichever way you slice it, and by whatever technicalities were employed, Bush v. Gore resulted in the Supreme Court deciding how a state could conduct their vote.
On the basis of an appeal from a state supreme court, itself an appeal from lower courts, challenging the procedure. Which is basically the process that Kelly v PA went through, although SCOTUS declined to hear it yesterday.
So a lawsuit goes through some filters before it ever gets to the "presenting evidence" stage.
One of them is standing. If I sue Hawaii for not providing trueluk with a beach house, no evidence gets heard. It gets dismissed because I am not trueluk, nor am I a resident of Hawaii, and therefore I don't have standing to bring the suit. The courts are not going to hear cases where party A files suit, claiming that party B damaged party C.
Another is failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. If I sue Nebraska for not granting AnimalMuppet an oceanfront villa, I never get to present evidence. Nebraska has no oceanfront villas to give away, and a court order can't make them have any. (A more typical form for this to take is that some forms of relief are beyond the authority of the court to grant.)
Then there's... I forget the name of it. But the complaint is supposed to give an overview of the evidence. If that claimed evidence, even if true, doesn't give reason for the court to grant the requested relief, then the court isn't going to bother to listen to the evidence.
Most of the Trump (or on behalf of Trump) cases are falling on these hurdles. It's not that the judges are suppressing the evidence. It's that the lawsuits aren't even good enough to make it to the point of presenting evidence.
Note well: IANAL. Some detail and nuance may be missing from this post, but I think it's close to right. Don't take it as legal advice, though, because it's not.
> Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence.
Source?
> Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
That doesn't really matter. The "denominator" is not the most important part. In other words, it's not so much that his campaign won 1/51 cases or if it was really 1/10 cases. I only care about how many his campaign won (1).
And are you being honest, or are you being technically truthful while trying to deceive me? In other words, if a case was brought by Rudy Giuliani or Sidney Powell, but not some legal entity called "The Trump Campaign", then it's all the same to me.
2,560 felons voted
66,247 underage voters
2,423 votes from people not registered
1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes
4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state
395 individuals who voted in two states
15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election
40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county
30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification
Are the claims you listed actually supported with evidence? I don't know Georgia's laws, so maybe felons are allowed to vote under some circumstances.
How do you even get a ballot for someone who isn't registered? Also, could they have moved after casting their vote legitimately?
Votes from people who moved out of state before the election. When is "the election"? I hope and assume they mean "before mail in ballots could be requested and submitted" and not "before November 3rd".
And what is "proper" signature matching? Signature matching is tricky. Are they getting professionals to analyze the signatures? Probably not. I'm not sure some Joe Schmoe would be able to look at two of my signatures and confirm they match, so I'm not that interested in strict signature matching as a bar to clear.
Rest assured, that if these claims actually are true, I will be happy to see the issues resolved. But seeing as all of the claims so far have come up totally empty, I'm not holding my breath. Remember when Trump said that he had a TON of evidence that Obama wasn't born in this country? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.
"evidence" sourced from tweets, gab dot com posts, infowars(!) and youtube videos aren't good enough for me, and they aren't good enough for the courts...
And I'm not dismissing them just because of their sources; a lot of those tidbits have been debunked or thrown out of courts on their merits already
Your IP address and associated shadow profile are recorded by multiple nation-state intelligence agencies, most likely. Or else by private groups who are interested in compiling an army of impressionable and easily-duped folks to continue using them as a weapon to subvert democracy.
This is not a far-fetched claim. If I was Russia, for example, I would do something exactly like this for exactly that reason. Not to mention that stuff exactly like this has happened and was later shown to be run by exactly the groups I'm referencing. It's Occam's razor.
It seems to lack the ability for adding a widget into a content column. Beneath my slider I display three columns, and each column contains a widget. Is it possible to add widgets into one of the columns within a Layers content widget?
Each widget occupies one whole row by itself. The bundled Content widget can generate columns and can't accept other widgets into one of its columns. Might be a future feature tho...
12,000 miles per year is < 33 miles per day. That's certainly doable when the range of the car is ~80 miles per day.
For the car to be 'free' you would certainly need to be driving it that many miles per day. Say I drive a pickup that gets 15 MPG. If I drive 1,000 miles per month (I don't, but that's the amount generally allowed for a leased vehicle -- 12,000 miles per year), and if those 1,000 miles can be driven in the Spark, then I'm buying ~67 less gallons of gas per month. At $3/gallon, I'm saving $200 per month in gas, and at $4/gallon I'm saving $268 per month in gas. The money I'm saving on gas for my pickup pays for the Spark. We shouldn't forget the $999 down payment, but over three years that's just under $28/month. And then there's the cost of electricity. There's an annual fuel cost of $400, or $33 per month (based on $.12 per kW-hr and 12,000 miles--however, where I live that's going to be about $10 cheaper per month, but I'll use the $33 for these calculations).
My cost: $199 + $28 + $33 = $260/month
My savings: $268/month (at $4/gallon of gas).
I only drive my pickup around 8,000 miles per year, which is ~45 gallons of gas per month. So my savings are only $180/month at $4/gallon of gas, making the cost of the Spark ~$80/month, or $2880 for the 3 year lease.
At this point I can work over the numbers even further so that car is even cheaper saying that over half of my miles can be deducted for business, saving me over $800/year in federal income tax. That brings me down to around $14/month, or $504 for the 3 year lease.
Excellent points, thanks. It makes me wonder, do leases let you "buy" an extra mileage allowance up front? Assuming it's not too expensive, that might add further savings.
Otherwise the commute I have in mind is 90 miles per day x 5 days per week. So the mileage limits wouldn't work.
* Add activity could use a text input search box that filters the activities.
+ If you're going to show Exercise + Variation, it might simplify things to not include the variations in the Exercises column.
- For example, Barbell Shoulder Press (4), Barbell Close-Grip Shoulder Press(1), Barbell Wide-Grip Shoulder Press(1), and Barbell Reverse-Grip Shoulder Press(1) are all listed under exercise. No matter which I choose, I have to choose it again in the variation. Seems to me like you shouldn't include a variation in the exercises list if it's a variation of an exercise already in the list.
* Add Exercise through Journal>History: I should be able to tab between lbs, sets, reps, mins. I have to click each to edit.
* Let's say I want to add my workout history to this. Adding my historical data is difficult. I have to go day by day in the journal and then click Add Day from Plan or Add Exercise. Can you handled any kind of CSV import?
* I see I can track my body weight, but can I track my weight gain/progress per exercise? How many lbs have I added to my squat this year? What did I bench press during my last workout? Similarly, when I lift weights I look back at my previous workouts in my workout log (which is currently a thread of emails) to know how much weight I should be lifting for my workout.
* I added individual exercises to my journal for yesterday, but they don't show up on the calendar. Only activities show up on the calendar.
* When I click the activity on the calendar view, I'd like to be able to see what I did. It doesn't show me the exercises in the popup.
* There's not great support for me missing a rep. Let's say I'm squatting 3 sets, 5 reps each. That's easy enough to plan, but what happens if I miss a rep on the last set? For me to enter that data I have to change the exercise to 2 sets, 5 reps each, and then add a new exercise with 1 set, 4 reps. But that doesn't seem right because I didn't plan to do 4 reps on that third set. I planned to do 5 and I failed.
Thanks for the feedback! Most of what you shared is in the pipeline for development.
We're in the process of redesigning the exercise search experience. We'll be adding in more granular analytics over time (i.e, measuring your performance over time tied to a specific exercise). Selecting a day in the calendar and viewing the exercises completed for the day is also planned. We understand this is incredibly helpful when viewing your exercise history too.
To your last point, this issue is solved by making a round of the exercise and treating each round as a set. When you get to round 3 (aka set 3) of your exercise, you can change the # of reps from 5 to 4, specific to set 3.
While English is taught from elementary school, it becomes much more important in high schools in Vietnam. There is at least one English-only class at most schools. Some schools do Vietnamese in the mornings and English-only classes in the afternoon, while at other schools every class except Vietnamese Studies is taught in English.
I've been involved with many high school and college exchange students from Vietnam over the past few years and some students I've been working with recently speak English at the same level as native speakers with no discernible accent. One of my current students scored over a 2200 on her SAT. It's really amazing. From my experience, and from what I've been told, the emphasis on English language studies has increased within even the last 5 years in Vietnam. Each year, the students that I work with here in the US speak better English than the students from the year before.
In Vietnam, those students who have decent English skills and score high on English standard tests study most of their English outside school. They often took extra courses regularly and study in groups. The quality of English education in primary and secondary schools in Vietnam is much much worse.
>> There is at least one English-only class at most schools. Some schools do Vietnamese in the mornings and English-only classes in the afternoon, while at other schools every class except Vietnamese Studies is taught in English.
Those are international schools. Their tuition are usually very high, and way out of the price range for most families in Vietnam. Normal schools where I live (Hanoi) only teach in Vietnamese.
We do have English class once or twice a week where we learn the basics of the language. But it does not provide us enough exposure to the language. To improve our language skills, we usually have to take extra classes after school.
There are a great many high schools that supposedly teach foreign languages. Very few (none that I've seen) of them produce anything remotely like this. In fact, there are many university graduate native speakers of English who can't write as well as sondh. This is something truly extraordinary and it makes me want to learn more about Vietnam.
A host family does not pay for its student's tuition. A host family will, in exchange for monetary compensation, provide a student with a bed to sleep in, meals, and a means for transportation to and from school and school activities.
However, Marek's use of the word volunteer - "I'm looking for volunteer host family in California for the next school year." - leads me to believe he doesn't want to pay the host family for room and board. We could clear up the confusion by emailing Marek.
> Burning fossil fuels is bad.
Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling productivity.
> Shell needs to leave that business in the very long term.
No, they don't NEED to do that. Well, not until the government mandates it anyway. And that's the problem. Perhaps they will leave the business, but they shouldn't until renewable energy becomes more economical than producing fossil fuels. In the meantime, it makes more sense to move production to developing countries so they have the same opportunity we had here to benefit from cheap energy.