apex3stoker

I think you have your policy preferences and you have the idea that if starlink was allowed, it would magically take much less time to go through regulation process. I think this is not true, but I think we digress.

My point is that democrats don’t get credit and votes for improving internet for rural areas and republicans don’t get punished for destroying progress. The fact that you are criticizing democrats so harsh and think trump breaking the laws doesn’t matter just prove my points.

That was an illegal move done by Trump. Biden administration proposed regulations for the conditions of the funding and allow states to apply for it. The regulations went through the necessary process to become final and the states went through the work to fulfill the requirements and the fundings were approved to go out of the door based on the trenches.

Trump administration illegally impounded the funding. This has been disallowed for decades but sadly the republican political appointees at the supreme court is allowing him.

Yes.

When Democratic Party controlled the federal government, they tried to. It is generally hard to do because it requires funding and passing laws. Another difficulty is that voters don’t reward Democratic Party for their efforts.

It is very easy for Republican Party to revert the changes. Moreover their donors reward the republican politicians for their efforts and their voters don’t punish them for their efforts.

I think most software companies hire from computer science graduates from US colleges. It’s likely that international students makes up a large percentage of these graduates.

My point is that unless we understand the government structure, we risk missing budget in municipal government. I pointed out two instances in which in Seattle the government entities managing the infrastructure (airports, transits) are separate from the city/county. They are still municipal governments supported by tax revenues but we don’t see them on the book of the city/county.

How do you draw the conclusion you like to draw if you miss these?

It is not that simple. San Francisco budget includes the SFO airport but Seattle budget doesn’t include that. That’s part of Port of Seattle, which is not part of city of Seattle.

Also, sound transit provides much transportation services in Seattle, but it is not part of city of Seattle. On the other hand, SFMTA is a department of city and county of San Francisco.

I think you are probably not comparing apple to apple. I think San Francisco is both a city and a county, while Seattle is a city within a county. Also, the San Francisco International Airport is managed by the city & county of San Francisco, while Seattle Tacoma international airport is managed by Port of Seattle, which is also separate from city of Seattle. The budget if city of San Francisco also includes Municipal Transportation Agency but city of Seattle budget doesn’t include king county metro and sound transit which are separate entity.

The US government never did that.

Russian did use facebook and other social media to influence voters. It was rather effective.

But it is totally different from Chinese government compelling tiktok using full access of its internal data to do their bidding in secret. The effectiveness will likely be much higher.

I think the issue is that China can use TikTok to run publicity campaigns to sway the voters into supporting policies or political candidates they like. They can do it more effectively with executives residing in China.

The US government won’t be able to do the same thing with the two party systems and with more checks and balances.

There is a ISP which provides fibre internet with great upload speed and low price a few miles away. I once called their signup phone number and asked if they could extend their service to my place. They said no because they had an agreement with Comcast not to encroach on each other territories.

>environmentalists were bought by gas extraction people

In the US, opposition to nuclear energy is more like opposition to homeless shelters - people don't want the plants near them. I don't think environmentlists are that powerful politically as to significantly impact the trajectory of nuclear power policies in the US, otherwise, they would have the power to significantly impact climate change policies too.

Besides, what I have seen is that environmentalists are pretty divided in term of nuclear energy. There are strong opponents like green peace and Sierra clubs, there are strong supporters and there are many who are ambivalent. This further reduces their political power as a group.

I think nuclear energy supporters should stop blaming environmentalists as they are pretty much non-factor if they want nuclear power.