ignirtoq

People need to start changing their behavior about this heat. I know this sounds like victim blaming. I know people shouldn't have to change their behavior because we saw global warning coming for 30 years and should have prevented this from happening. But it's happening. You can't go into Death Valley in the summer anymore. You just can't. Please don't put yourself in this position.

It's a tragedy that this death happened. We absolutely need to adapt our emergency services to this heat to try to prevent something like this from happening again. But we also need to change our behaviors so we don't end up in that position in the first place.

On August 21, 1945, physicist Harry Daghlian was performing an experiment with a plutonium core nicknamed the "demon core". He accidentally dropped a brick of tungsten carbide directly onto the core. This action caused the core to briefly go super critical and expose Harry Daghlian to a lethal burst of radiation. He was able to walk away from the accident, seemingly okay at first, but 25 days later he was dead from acute radiation poisoning. By this time the effects of acute radiation exposure were well known, but there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. He was dead from the moment of the accident, it just took 25 days to come to completion.

This Supreme Court ruling didn't hurt the country. It has killed the country. It's like the burst of lethal radiation from the demon core; our country is dead, but it's going to take some time for the effects to sink in. How long that takes depends on elections and the humanity of the Presidents that are elected. The Supreme Court pulled the pin out of a grenade and handed it to Biden. He now has to pass that grenade to the next President, hoping that each one doesn't release the lever. But someday, whether Trump in the next Presidency, or somewhere down the line, someone is going to release the lever and blow up our democracy.

And we can't undo this decision. As Devin from Legal Eagle explains, this is a Constitutional judgement by the Supreme Court. Since it pertains to Constitutional powers, Congress can't pass a law to limit it in any way. And there's no higher court to appeal to on this ruling. We would have to pass a Constitutional amendment, or just tear down the whole country to undo this. What could possibly be our path forward from here?

Viruses evolve, some quite quickly. The flu isn't the fastest (looking at you, HIV), but it's up there. Over time, existing vaccines train your body to fight something that doesn't quite match what's in the wild (i.e. efficacy goes down with time). That's why there's a different seasonal flu vaccine every year.

They create flu vaccines on a yearly cycle, and a pandemic can kick off in a matter of weeks and months, so if it doesn't match the preplanned cycle, they'll have to invest more resources to creating the most up to date vaccine off-cycle.

I think it was pine, actually, but it was over 10 years ago so I can't say for sure.

Not only did my math master's thesis adviser use Linux, he read his email from a command line program and wrote his papers in plain TeX, considering LaTeX a new fangled tool he didn't need.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.

That's how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can't actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn't be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.

The 10th amendment doesn't change the supremacy clause. It simply makes explicit what's implicit in the supremacy clause: federal law takes precedence over any and all state laws and constitutions when they are made in pursuance of the US Constitution, so the 10th amendment clarifies that if it's not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, then it's reserved for the states. To invoke the 10th amendment in this case you would have to prove the federal government is acting beyond its constitutional scope, which would require either proving it's going beyond EMTALA or that EMTALA itself is unconstitutional. They are not making either claim in this case.

and whether you like it or appreciate it or not, he's got a history of public service

Would that be the charity that's a front for embezzling charitable donations, or the presidency that he used to enrich himself by vacationing in his own properties, requiring the federal government to pay exorbitant, arguable falsely inflated, prices with taxpayer money for housing the Secret Service in Trump properties and selling national secrets to hostile governments?

Republicans in Idaho asked the Supreme Court to decide whether state bans or federal law take precedence.

This is absurd. Federal law always takes precedence, even if it's a section of a state constitution versus a law passed by Congress. Period. It's the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, and it's quite clear. The supremacy clause doesn't cover executive order, but this case is about EMTALA, a law passed by Congress.

Now if they want to argue the Biden administration's enforcement of that law is going beyond the bounds set by the law, that would be something SCOTUS would need to decide. But as far as I can tell they aren't arguing that. They're saying if the Court lets the Biden administration require emergency abortions in opposition to state law, then that will let them require elective abortions as well, which is an even more absurd claim since the scope of EMTALA is strictly for medical care when the health or life of the patient is at risk without it.

Carbon capture is like geo-engineering in the sense that we should definitely be researching it, but we should definitely not be talking about it in the political space because there are much more effective solutions that are cheaper and can be implemented now. Carbon capture is only worth talking about doing once we've radically altered our economy to no longer produce carbon emissions and are ready to undo the carbon we've already pumped into the atmosphere.

This will be an unpopular opinion here, but Biden has been backed into a corner on this. The immigration system is fundamentally broken and not equipped to deal with modern needs, but that has to be fixed by Congress. Biden had legislation he was favoring, and regardless of what your opinion on it was, Republicans made it clear they won't let absolutely any changes to immigration happen with a Democrat in the White House, no matter how much they may agree with them.

His options under executive action are extremely limited. The strategy of letting the system flounder to illustrate the need for reform has only worked against him, so now he's trying something else. I don't agree with the current system, the reforms that he proposed, nor this executive order, but man, there just isn't a good solution here, and he's feeling the political pressure on it, which while it may be misdirected is nonetheless real.

I find the very term "content" fascinating, because the exact definition you choose puts it on a kind of spectrum with "useful" at one end and "measurable" at the other.

When Daniel Ek talks about "content," he means any pile of bits he can package up, shove in front of people, and stuff with ads. From that definition, making "content" is super cheap. I can record myself literally screaming for 30 seconds into the microphone already in my laptop and upload it using the internet connection I already have. Is it worth consuming? No, but I'll get to that. And content under that definition is very measurable in many senses, like file size, duration, and (important to him) number of hours people stream it (and can inject ads into). But from this view, all "content" is interchangable and equal, so it's not a very useful definition, because some content is extremely popular and is consumed heavily, while other content is not consumed at all. From Daniel's perspective, this difference is random, enigmatic, and awe inspiring, because he can't measure it.

At the other end of the spectrum is the "useful" definition where the only "content" is good content. My 30 seconds of screaming isn't content, it's garbage. It's good content that actually brings in the ad revenue, because it's what people will put up with ads to get access to. But what I would consider good content is not what someone else would consider good content, which is what makes it much harder to measure. But we can all agree making good content is hard and thus almost always expensive (at least compared to garbage passing as content).

And that's what makes Daniel Ek look like an out of touch billionaire. The people who make good content (that makes him money) use the more useful definition, which is difficult to make and expensive and actually worth talking about, while he uses the measurable definition that's in all the graphs on his desk that summarize his revenue stream.