sbelskie

> Since it was signed by then-Administrator Lisa Jackson in 2009, the finding has been used by the EPA to regulate sources of climate change-causing pollution from cars, power plants and other sources of transportation like planes, as well as oil and gas operations.

So the government should step in to dictate what neutrality means?

Yea that makes a lot of sense. The first Expanse novel (at least Miller’s storyline) fits here as well.

If you don't read/like much genre fiction, I would say probably no. The pacing is well done and I genuinely find story compelling, but the writing while solid-ish is not exactly of high literary quality.

Additionally, in terms of genre I actually find Weir's books to be more like detective novels than sci-fi, though obviously lots of sci-fi elements in them.

> Only 25% of Army, 52% of Navy and 81% of Air Force emergency doctors were placed at locations where they directly provided care to patients.

Is there a way where this means something different than it sounds? Because that sounds pretty insane.

A plurality of those who voted, you mean.

By this do you mean that Chinese automakers are getting close to a charging rate that would be equivalent to the time it takes to pump gasoline for the equivalent energy? If so, do you have any sources on that?

You are likely correct.

> Of the 73,537 chargers added to the data set in 2024, 37,983 new chargers were installed in 2024. The remaining 35,554 chargers were installed before 2024 and identified through new data sources.

Is almost impossible to defend when done by a particular team. No other team has managed the kind of sustained success with it that the Eagles have. If it was impossible to defend surely other teams would be using it too.

Tom Brady also had similar success with the standard old QB sneak during his career and I don't recall attempts to ban that.

Not in standard American English to the best of my knowledge, but it’s not impossible some dialects use this construction.

How do we “know” this?

I believe the argument would be that humans are inconsistent, fallible, and gameable in idiosyncratic and individual ways not that they are less susceptible than AI.

Can’t claim to be “mentally well”, whatever that might mean, but I definitely read it as nanometers.