notact

Also: the liability of getting stuck with a needle.

To be fair, you can replace ""believes in climate change" with "prioritizes energy independence". I would argue the latter is a stronger motivator for China.

Can you help me understand how alternatives to capitalism, such as central planning, would necessarily be better at preserving the planet?

TIL incineration can involve power generation. I am familiar with the term, but had assumed incineration was basically endothermic and wasteful.

We are already burning coal for power generation, whether we like it or not. I have wondered why we don't "recycle" plastic by shoveling it into the same furnace and a) get some energy out of it, and b) solve the landfill problem. That should be carbon neutral, since burning X tons of plastic is X tons of coal we didn't burn.

My question wasn't so much about the contradiction between regulating & banning authority, but questioning the authority to do either in the first place. I.e. I don't understand why gambling must necessarily be considered to be inter-state. But I now think this is unrelated to the point you were trying to make.

Why is this nonsensical? Gambling is not necessarily inter-state?

> And why would “manufacturing”....prepare us for anything else even ignoring that we’d have to regress to do it?

The American production machine (aka manufacturing) is a major component of what won WWII.

My VW has lane-keeping assist. In general I like it, because it had nudged me when I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have. But one failure mode is that it can detect shadows or other artifacts that it decides are lane markers. For example, at the right time of day hanging power lines will create a smooth curved shadow line on the road surface that the car will want to follow where ever they lead. It's not strong enough to yank the wheel out of my hands, but if I were briefly holding the wheel with my knee while reaching for something, it could get messy.

After all of their technical failures, and known cultural problems leading to them, I am astonished Boeing has the nerve to insist it is safe. Seems like they are betting the whole space business farm on astronauts not dying on the way down.

My friend is a tax accountant. I hope I am wrong, but I am worried for her entire profession. It seems more about memorization of the massive & enormously complex tax code, and less about actual problem solving. This seems very well suited to an AI. I suspect such professions will be decimated in the near future.

This is a perfect example of why half the country does not trust the media, including myself. To be clear, I am not a Trump fan. But when newspapers endorse the same party for decades and write editorials like this, TV networks broadcast morning talk and late night shows making it clear who they do & don't favor, etc, I have a hard time believing they are feeding me objective data. They are partially responsible for the massive public distrust that they decry.

Make it opt-in, please.

I guess this sorta makes sense - the slightest slowdown starts to deorbit the vehicle, at which point a particular descent rate becomes difficult to maintain?

I'm not sure why people are misunderstanding my question as "Why not bring more fuel and burn the rockets in reverse". I am simply asking: why not reenter the atmosphere at a shallower angle, spreading the atmospheric braking friction over a longer period of time, which I'd expect would allow more time for the accumulated heat to radiate away before it becomes catastrophic.