30944836

>It is the court's job to ensure the law is enforced as written.

The supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. It has no army, no police. Abiding by Supreme Court rulings is by tradition only.

>Where ambiguity exists, it is the court's job to interpret the law. That's literally the entire purpose of a court.

This is also by tradition only. The Constitution doesn't specify this, nor are there any laws that say this is the job of the court.

>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?

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.

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.

Would be great to put "Major League Soccer" in the headline here. MLS also stands for many things.

>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.

Thank you for this. It is a reminder for me to think more long term than just my short life so far.

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 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.