And they'll only get better with time. I think It'll be a little rocky the next four years in the US. But still, they are great. My house is 100% wind powered and I regret not putting solar on 5 years ago

Great points! Wind and solar are far easier to scale. Their main issue is land use, but when applied properly (with appropriate environmental impact assessments) that's not a major concern on its own, really it's transiting that power to use centers. Dealing with the individual property rights for a transmission line that doesn't benefit the person under it is and has been enough to kill energy projects.

In my opinion, nuclear's strength lies in its energy density. You could replace a coal or gas plant with a nuclear plant. This is an option being explored by a couple companies because it enabled them to use land no one wants that already has the cooling and transmission connections.

I support nuclear and it was a recurring theme in my environmental policy degree, but I am by no means against wind and solar. I think they are fantastic sources. They each have their trade offs. But we will need to make use of everything in the face of climate change.

One small note, nuclear is expensive, however be cautious when researching cost per Wh produced and look for the time scale. Wind and solar projects are often forecasted to run for just 20 years, they can certainly go longer though. Nuclear runs for 50+ years. Cost comparisons always use the lowest time scale. Nuclear obviously has a very high upfront cost that makes it stupid expensive for a 20 year plan, but over 50 it can reach parody or undercut renewables. Renewables are also done a disservice by these same reports by locking them to the low timescales when their leases are easily extended. But leases are also a large expense so renewal does bump the cost. Things get difficult to forecast with those known-unknows, so it's easier, and more accurate to take the lowest scale and say "this is the cost for 20 years" and let the reader decide if they want to math out the 2.5 multiplier. But then it wouldn't be accurate to the 20 years since renewal costs and...well, you see why we use the lower scale.

Kyle Hill has done a fantastic job discussing nuclear energy, if anyone is interested in learning more about its viability. https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0

Also, I'll leave this safety study here as well because nuclear safety is, and should be, a top concern.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Providing he doesn't become a dictator, which is certainly probable, his impacts on the environment will be bad, but not catastrophic.

Historically, when the incumbent is out, the president flips to the other party. Businesses plan strategy out for 5-10-20 years. Trump dismantling regulation won't force them to reconsider their strategy entirely. They'll use the 4 years as breathing room knowing it's probable a democratic executive will return in 2029. They'll slow walk progress, but they aren't going to abandon everything and start ramping up emissions. They still have to sell products in CA and the 16 states that follow CA emissions rules. We already saw that in 2016, auto makers stayed the course. They enjoyed the extra time to get their fleet MPGs up, but they knew time would eventually out and they'd need to be competitive when that happened.

Trumps "drill baby drill" plan sounds good to idiots, but oil is still subject to supply and demand. They already lease more land than they could ever use. They'll use trump to buy up leases that would otherwise go to renewables, but they aren't going to start pumping oil past demand and driving their profits down. Especially considering retaliation tariffs could cut into exports as well.

The IRA benefits red states more than blue and they are already begging GOP leaders to leave it alone. Trump might be able to cut individual tax credits for the middle class. Slow some solar and EV purchases, buy that'll cut into Elon's business as well, so maybe he won't even get that done.

Of course, if he goes full dictator, we're fucked anyway. But if he stays within the confines of our flawed democracy, and money prefers he do so they can continue to buy laws forever, then there's a chance his damage will be confined as well.

First, let me clarify I bought my Tesla used, before Musk went full fascist, and autopilot came free. The car was updated to the newest hardware for free, since the original FSD equipment couldn't do it either.

That out of the way, FSD sucks, and it's getting worse, not better. When if first come out of beta it was okay. I remember describing it as driving with a teenager, they got the general idea, but would make bad decisions so you had to watch them. Years of updates later and it's practically unusable to me. It tries to go way under or over the speed limit, it hesitates or slams on the brakes for green lights. It slams on the brakes for cars that pull out with plenty of gap but doesn't even notice the risky merges. It can not seem to navigate intersections anymore, damn near stopping in the middle of a turn. It actually just updated yesterday and I tried it again, it took me less than 5 miles to disable it again. It is, in my opinion, a hazard to use. I talked to my partner about it and we both agree it didn't used to be this bad.

Anyway, the stupidest part of all this, is they changed it so it's either full self driving all the time or not. You want cruise while you're in traffic because you know it'll try to cut in front of someone? Silly idiot, no you don't. So you now have to have a second profile* for cruise control and lane keep without FSD. And the odd thing is that lane keep and cruise are fine. They function like FSD used to. They can drive the highway with no problem and trust me, I do not have much faith in the car so I'm watching it close. It can't navigate city streets, but neither can FSD....

TLDR, my car was a better deal for me than Tesla. After years of FSD access, it's bad and getting worse, not better. I can't believe people pay 5 figures for it and maybe that's why they feel the need to clip perfect drives or defend it.

Spoiler, Walters is 100% buying the Trump Bibles anyway. All this does is open the bidding a tiny bit more. Sure, someone can do a FOIA request and ask to see the bids, but they'll ignore it. The Oklahoma State AG is currently sueing the Oklahoma State Department of Education for ignoring the AG's own information requests. It's just $5-6 million for Trump out of OK schools. But hey, it's one of the best school systems if you flip the list up side down.

InB4 "WhY DiDn't hE Do iT WhEn hE HaD ThE MaJoRiTy?" Because he's calling for constitutional amendments that require a 2/3rds support in Congress and the SCOTUS may finally be disliked enough to get some GOP members to support reform, especially if it comes with limiting Biden's own immunity.

Ah yes Tulsi Gabbard. An obvious GOP plant in the 2020 primary that...Oh, would you look at that, left the democratic party citing wokeness and now campaigns for the GOP. I guess we have to trust her motives when she 'Rips' a prosecutor for doing prosecutor things.

Dealers are still a big problem for EVs on top of the points mentioned in the article. They complain about it being hard to sell EVs, but also mark up almost every model and push customers toward ICE cars. Dealers are incentivized to sell ICE cars that support them long term with overpriced service intervals and repairs. EVs don't require as much regular maintenance. States with strong dealer laws like Oklahoma have been fighting against EV adoption by banning direct sales, show rooms, and even service centers.

We're stuck with him till 2034 at least, he had this to say following his confirmation:

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk renmembered Thomas who was 43 years old when confirmed saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6?amp

The 119th Congress will be seated on January 3rd 2025 and the presidential election certification will be January 6th. So if the Dems win the majority in 2024, they won't have the power to deny certificatation outright. Though, I'm sure a minority will still object to every swing state like they did in 2020, just to draw it out.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. That's why the court loosing it's credibility is kind of a big deal for Roberts.

As racist as this obviously is, it's good to see a red state be the test case for ignoring the court. It might give blue states more energy to ignore the next 40 years of authoritarian and climate denial rulings.