>because I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority.
Luckily nothing stops Congress from making laws that clarify what they granted the EPA. If they were so fussed with the EPA doing what they were doing, why didn't they leap up and pass a law that told them to stop?
Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say? Is congress mute?
You're looking at it completely backwards. Congress was fine to let the EPA run around and do whatever, because that means people can bitch at the EPA instead of Congress.
> Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say?
That's... not what they're doing. The court is telling Congress that if you want an agency to have the power to make vast, sweeping changes, then you have to be explicit. They don't get to create an agency and then just give them blanket authority to do anything they want, at any scale.
It is the court's job to ensure the law is enforced as written. Where ambiguity exists, it is the court's job to interpret the law. That's literally the entire purpose of a court.
Congress is not mute. Congress speaks by passing laws. Any other, less formal means of speaking is the voice of members of Congress, not Congress as a whole.
That's a two way street. It's not that China has Apple over a barrel. There is a MAD aspect to the relationship. Apple is definitely trying to get out of China as a manufacturing dependency. They'd rather not be banned from the market, but they are preparing for that. Let's rip the band-aid off, I say.
>China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship.
This is not true. China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. There is plenty of competition, as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See: WeChat.
> as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See: WeChat
You just confused a claim of fact with a personal opinion.
"Efficient" and "feature rich" are close to meaningless when thrown around like that. You can't actually support what you said because it's very heavy on being subjective.
Feature rich is corporate speak for: bloated with garbage that's unnecessary.
"""
Such processes of capital market development are often described as important characteristics of financialization processes. And while not yet on par with highly financialized economies such as the United States
"""
So this means China's financialization is unmatched? Yet the statement suggest US financialization is superior to China?
Nah, the title itself is too propagandist. What the hell is "authoritarian capitalism"?! Corporations are all authoritarian, to facilitate individual control of large resources owned by the corporation. Capitalism is just a nice term to coat the brutal underlying profit seeking gangster. Corolally, there is no such idea of liberal capitalism.
WeChat has more features than WhatsApp but probably not the Facebook ecosystem. It's also far-fetched to say it's "far more efficient", given Facebook has to serve many more users and doesn't seem slow.
The interest rate was hike was baked into the price already. Now there's a re-shuffle where people with higher risk tolerances start buying up stocks that are on sale.
>Somewhere, off in the distance, a coal or gas-fired generator is producing a significant majority portion of that electric energy
For every car that is produced, two things are true:
(1) It takes fossil fuels to make and deliver them.
(2) It takes fossil fuels to run them.
For every internal combustion engine car produced in 2022, both (1) and (2) will true for the entire life of the vehicle, which in the US is around 12 years.
For every electric car, only (1) is guaranteed to be true for the life of the car. (2) is a choice, one that we can change in the 12 years that vehicle in on the road.
I don't know how anyone over the age of 30 could write this headline with the word "could." I know there's data behind it, and that we have to be careful not to assume things without the data but...
Have they been outside in the summer, in the midwest? In the mid-1990s you could nearly read a book by the light of lightning bugs. Now's nearly dark.
I’m not claiming your conclusion is incorrect, but predator-prey systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka–Volterra_equations) can have long stretches of population decrease. A measured decrease, even a huge one lasting decades, need not be a a long term decline.
Grew up in Southeast Virginia in the 60's. Fireflies galore. June bugs also. Not anymore - haven't seen them in 40 years. Seems to me it coincided with aerial spraying for mosquitos in the area. There are still plenty of mosquitos however:)
This isn’t a simple two-species system. If insect population collapse were to cause a human population collapse, I think the number of cars (and wind turbines, and insecticides) would follow, possibly early enough to prevent full extinction of insects.
The title of this article may make it seem so, but IMHO, it is incorrect, and the main message of the article is
One in three firefly species in North America may be at risk of extinction, according to a study by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
The title of that paper (https://xerces.org/press/firefly-species-at-risk) is “One in Three North American Firefly Species Assessed May Be at Risk of Extinction”, so I think that’s not a misinterpretation from my side.
Funny, the last two summers here at my rural place in southern Ontario (basically the midwest) there's been so many fireflies. We used to have them here and there, but never like this.
by some authors, this decline is 3 orders of magnitude faster than what is inferred from fossil records of the last extinction event. global warming might increase that by an additional 2 orders of magnitude.
the good news is that it can still be partially reversed, if humanity acts quickly.
Humans act extremely quickly - in geological terms. That's part of the problem, of course. Unfortunately, it stands to reason that OP meant quickly in human terms.
Anecdote but 2020 summer (covid summer) there were tons of fireflies in Boston. A lot more so than normal. I don't know how it was 10+ years ago though...
I noticed the text of your comment ins grey, which means someone downvoted you. I disagree on first take of your comment, because QA to me doesn't represent a lower-tier of anything. It's a tech job. Women being in tech is good. Indian people being in tech is good. Will you share a bit more about your thinking? Why do you see this as being discrimination?
Sidenote: I once glanced around a team I was working on a few years ago and found most of the product/program managers were gay or lesbian. Didn't strike me as discrimination, since there are, of course, gay and lesbian hardware engineers, gay and lesbian software engineers... it just happened that we all found each other on a particular team.
So that's why I think that's what's going on here, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts, as they differ from mine.
The comment is only at zero, it means nothing. I made no qualitative statement about QA being beneath anything.
Most developers equate QA is beneath them. I also think QA is just as valid and not beneath dev, but I have also held nearly every roll in modern software companies. How we view QA doesn't mean that is how the tech job market sees it. Pay is lower, qual is lower and at companies that have a sizeable Indian workforce, I have witnessed that QA heavily skews female.
I didn't even notice until I have been on interview loops with Indian men that I thought were nice and that I had professional and personal respect for and this weird tiger came out when it came to interviewing women (for dev roles) that didn't come out when interviewing men. This is just anecdotal, not all not all.
This comment itself is going to get flagged or downvoted, but I can't put a caveat on every sentence.
> A couple of women who I knew had studied STEM subjects but had changed their career trajectory after graduating, explained the systemic sexism that women face in universities in India which deterred them from pursuing it any further.
And then I see those pressures in the hiring loop (for devs), we didn't interview QA, it would make sense that they get pushed into QA or get pushed out entirely.
Sexism in tech is much stronger than men realize, women are fully aware.
I think the status quality of jobs is an interesting aspect of discrimination. Why do certain jobs have higher or lower status? If the perceived status of various jobs was flatter, would various discriminatory schemes (intentional or not) continue to operate? Would differences in income persist?
My hypothesis is that demographic clusters of people within certain occupations are in part affinity and in part discriminatory which operate as a yin-yang.
Another hypothesis is that the existence of under-represented demographic segments in certain fields of study/occupation such as STEM means that the over-represented demographic segments are under-represented in other fields. Changing representation has classically focused on importing under-represented folks into high status fields. This effectively overstuffs some fields which decreases effectiveness. A better approach would be to make the other fields more attractive/high status so that the over-represented demographic segments in fields like STEM grow interest in other fields.
My hypothesis has always been that job status is largely driven by compensation and difficulty obtaining the position. If these are the drivers, I don't know how you would equalize status without overturning the job market at Large
One aspect I've noticed throughout my career is that the engineering problems QE engineers face are generally more straightforward, with well-defined parameters, and common patterns. The skills required to be a successful QE engineer require, generally, less breadth and depth of expertise than some other disciplines of engineering. I think it's a natural landing place for people who know how to write some code, but struggle to view problems at multiple levels of abstraction.
Article doesn't make it clear what the definition of paycheck-to-paycheck is, so I'm wondering if behind all this is that famous, infuriating "budget" of the $500k earner that still feels poor, somehow:
>Every time this guy tweets, I regret my purchase more and more.
You are certainly free to feel however you like about your own purchases, but I have to say, I don't understand it. Either you like the car or you don't. If you do -- great! Drive away. If you don't -- sell it. Don't see what the WFH policy of Tesla has to do with anything.
Tesla employees are adults. They are not trapped by poverty wages. They are professionals. They can leave if they don't like it.
I'm a die-hard WFH'er and also not a CEO. Musk should run his company how he feels best.
You don’t care anything about who the money from your purchases flow too? In most cases I don’t, because I don’t have much insight into it. But to the extent that I can keep my money from going to people I despise, I think it makes sense to do so.
many people buy teslas for the statment it makes about their views and priorities. so its not surprising those same people dislike when its not just about the environment amd now tangled up with musks world view of the day.
If the environment is a priority for you, is it stupid that you buy an electric vehicle and partially hope that it encourages others to do the same? And would it be stupid if you regretted that Musk was needlessly muddying that?
I think this is a naïve view. If you do not like the next leader in your country, you'll not complain since you are not a trapped adult, and you'll emigrate instead?
People have a right to expect reasonable policies from their employers. It should not be "I'm the CEO, I'll do whatever I damn well please and you either take it or leave".
> People have a right to expect reasonable policies from their employers.
No, they don't have this right. What the 'people' might find unreasonable can be, in fact, very reasonable from the point of view of their employers, who quite possibly have far more knowledge about the best way to run an organization. They also have far more responsibilities than workers, the biggest of which is paying the salary. The employee can get away with not doing any work for months, which is relatively easy on remote. Try getting away with not paying salary!
To combat unreasonable policies, people DO have a different right: to quit and find a job they like more.
We are talking about employers and employees who we can both assume to be adults.
There is no reason for Musk to say: "come to the office for 40 weeks or I'll fire you" - this is not how employer-employee relations should be in the 21st century.
Nobody defines how employer-employee relations should be in the 21st century but the employers. They run their business as they please. Employees decide if they want to work for them, or walk away.
Also. I do have experience with very adult people who fake productivity working remotely. Some even brag about 'working' remotely for several companies at once, effectively frauding their wage from each.
I think we’ll not come to an agreement. Personally I find the top-down views you seem to hold on employment and workplace conduct very reminiscent of the “zero sum capitalism” from the Industrial age.
Since my company is my business, and Musk's company is Musk's business, it is both figuratively and literally not your business how we should run them.
But hey, you are always welcome to start your own company and run it as you think companies 'should' be run in the 21st century!
Thanks mate. I’m just glad my employer also takes into consideration the wellbeing of the assets that make his business profitable: the employees.
If your employees enjoy working for you: glad it’s all working out. If they (secretly) don’t, good luck running your business in a job market with ongoing labor shortage!
Luckily nothing stops Congress from making laws that clarify what they granted the EPA. If they were so fussed with the EPA doing what they were doing, why didn't they leap up and pass a law that told them to stop?
Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say? Is congress mute?