meragrin_

You neglect to mention that is for the Department of Defense. Is it really that awful to remove that type of research from just that department?

> fight the rise of fascism.

Where?

> The only telecom in America to resist turning on a domestic eavesdropping firehose tap for the government, was pounded to the edge of bankruptcy.

How so? There was no mention of the government taking action against the company to cause the company to fail. If a company is failing without government contracts, that is on them and not the government.

How so? Please give very specific answers which don't include the normal business practices afforded to every other business or incalculable garbage.

Or maybe you are just blind to the realities of normal people. Most people are not hell-bent on burning fossil fuels. There are numerous valid reasons for people to continue to choose ICE. I want an EV. I want to dump every piece of outdoor equipment with an ICE for something with an electric motor. I very much prefer the pieces I have switched to electric. I've been wanting to make the switch for years. It just does not make sense for me at this time.

> Recently, there was news about a visitor rejected because of a JD Vance meme, so this is not hypothetical.

Everything I've seen indicates the administration and the right love those JD Vance memes. Why would they reject "one of their own"?

> Meanwhile, I'm going to download the app right now. Thanks, Streisand effect!

You know they could be going for the Streisand effect. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to add false incidents to reduce the effectiveness of the app. Nothing will get those people riled up like a court ruling in favor of the app. In the end, it could work to the administration's favor to have the app up and running. Nothing like acting all offended in public then celebrating privately as unnecessary fear and confusion sets in with false reports.

> If there was an ice raid near me i'd like to know so i can avoid the traffic.

So a traffic app?

Bureaucrats write what falls under the CFR. Congress writes the US Code. Unless there is something in the US Code which specifies the period in which the licensee must have 50% of the satellites in place, the bureaucrats can change the rules in the CFR. Somehow I doubt Congress was that detailed. They likely just passed the buck to let the bureaucrats specify the details.

> after all, it will turn your $1M into $2.5M, no?

Um, no. The graphic intends to show money spent by all parties on housing. The original party pays $1M and receives $300k for the plots of land. The subplot parties then spend $500k to build houses. There is nothing magically turning a $1M home into multiple homes without additional capital.

> if it's a 2.5x investment cheat code for the fastest actors

It isn't a 2.5x investment cheat code. You're spending $1M for the original home. You're spending $500k on the construction of each new home. That's $2.5M invested. They would need to sell each house for more than $1.5M each for a "2.5x investment cheat code". If the original house cost $1M, how are they going to sell 4 houses with less land at a higher asking price? Even if they somehow managed that, do you honestly think sellers in the area aren't going to catch on?