Is it all speculation still at this point for what happens next? Like are they immediately void, does the govt have to repay importers the now illegal loss?
Or is this just another "trump did illegal thing but nothing will happen" kind of scenario?
A typical pattern is the appeals court (of which scotus is one) clarifies the legal issues and send the case back to the trial court to clean up and issue specific orders.
Any further action to end-around the Supreme Court decision and re-impose the tariffs will almost certainly require broad Congressional approval. And this is a very bad time to try to do that since nearly half of those seats are up for re-election this year.
I think this issue is effectively dead at least until we see how the new majority shakes out in November.
You can't get around the Supreme Court. Full stop. They can try, fail, and declare victory but they cannot find another way. They would literally be right back in the courts fighting their own consequences and punishment.
Afaik there's no consequences for the president ignoring the supreme court. Presidents have done so before. They mostly seem to get their way in the end.
That only means they have to be built in counties which are part of that compact, or have approved provisions to return the water back to be net-neutral and comply with environmental impact laws (unless your Foxconn or legacy manufacturer or farmer). However, Beaver Dam WI as this article calls out is along a fresh water source and does not require Lake Michigan water.
The other locations like Oracle’s dc in Port Washington or MS in Racine/Kenosha area are located such that they are within the defined boundaries outlined and dc unlike Foxconn are all ‘closed-loop’ which of course isn’t entirely perfect but certainly not on the scale of Foxcon’s 7mil gal/day nonsense.
> Due to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin v. Illinois, the State of Illinois is not subject to certain provisions of the compact pertaining to new or increased withdrawals or diversions from the Great Lakes.
I mean it seems like there's already avenues to skirt around this compact?
Also, from what I can tell, this isn't some sort of ban on using water from the Great Lakes basin, it's just a framework for how the states are to manage it. It is entirely believable to me that this compact would actually support water being used for developing tech in the surrounding communities (like using it in data centers).
I can understand concerns about moving thousands of acre-feet of water into the desert for cooling, or pumping your aquifer dry for the same thing. But moving water from the Great Lakes a few miles inland? How much water evaporates out of the Great Lakes every day, and what is the percentage increase when used for cooling?
I don't recall the exact specifics, but I do remember a while ago there was some outrage that Nestle was bottling some really large sounding amount of water (think ~millions of gallons a day?) from a Great Lake. The math behind how much was being used as a % of lake volume was negligible (it would take ~3,500,000 years to "drain" Michigan at that rate).
In my mind this is partly due to people not understanding large numbers, and also not understanding just how much water is actually in the Great Lakes. It's a huge amount - Lake Michigan has 1,288,000,000,000,000 gallons in it. Every human on earth could use close to 10gal of water per day for the next 50 years before Lake Michigan would be "dry", assuming it was never replenished. And that's just Lake Michigan. (Obviously environmental systems are more complicated than the simple division I did, and individual water usage isn't simply 10gal a day - it's just to demonstrate a point).
Now, someone else pointed out that the tragedy of the commons is a sort of death by a thousand cuts. And if anyone who shows up is allowed to draw millions of gallons a day, that can add up and certainly have negative effects. It's just important to actually understand the scale of the numbers involved, and to not let legitimate environmental concerns be cross-contaminated with just anti-tech-of-the-year sentiment, or political motivations, or whatever else might cloud the waters (pun unintended).
It's which side of the drainage basin is the water moved to? When the water is flushed back into the system, does it drain back into the Great Lakes? or down to the Gulf of Mexico?
On the southern shore of Lake Michigan, that "few miles" changes the watershed that its part of.
As for diversions that go to evaporative cooling, that's a big question for the data center itself and there are many designs. https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/data-center-cooli... has some cutting edge designs, but they're more expensive to use for pumping waste heat elsewhere.
While the Great Lakes are coming off of wet years ( https://water.usace.army.mil/office/lre/docs/waterleveldata/... ) that shouldn't be used as long term prediction of what will be available in another 10 years lest it becomes another Colorado river problem. Currently, the water levels for Lake Michigan are lower than average and not predicted to return to average in the model range. https://water.usace.army.mil/office/lre/docs/mboglwl/MBOGLWL... . You'll note that this isn't at the minimums from the 1960s... and the Great Lakes Compact was signed in 2008.
But where do we stop with all of this endless expansion? Do the great lakes have to go through an Aral Sea type of situation before we decide it's time to stop? It's not like these AI ghouls are shy about wanting infinite expansion and an ever-growing number of data centers to feed their word generators, do we really think that if we just let them have the water now they're not going to abuse that and that they won't start draining the lakes for all the water they can manage? I'm not so optimistic, myself.
Water levels have been down for years as-is. It may not seem like much now, but I think it's important to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" scenario in the future.
A human driver in a school zone during morning drop off would be scanning the sidewalks and paying attention to children that disappear behind a double parked suv or car in the first place, no?
As described by the nhtsa brief:
"within two blocks of a Santa Monica, CA elementary school during normal school drop off hours; that there were other children, a crossing guard, and several double-parked vehicles in the vicinity"
The "that there were other children, a crossing guard, and several double-parked vehicles in the vicinity" means that waymo is driving recklessly by obeying the speed limit here (assuming it was 20mph) in a way that many humans would not.
A camera doesn't stop those acts though, it may only discourage those who know about it at a huge cost of privacy and rights.
How about we build better infrastructure and regulate vehicles since those do actually stop this behavior. Most of those red lights and stoplights in the US should be roundabouts. Narrower lanes and other traffic calming measures should be much more pervasive. Vehicle size, specifically bumper height is out of control.
Compare US traffic and pedestrian deaths to the rest of the world, or at least a lot of EU countries. Its embarrassing.
Thanks for this CDC link! So the pedestrian death rate and the overall road traffic death rate is about three times higher in the US compared to other high-income countries... Mind-boggling.
> Vehicle size, specifically bumper height is out of control.
Many manufacturers are now selling pre-lifted trucks. Here in Texas around a third of the vehicles on the road are pickup trucks, and about half of those have been lifted beyond standard height either from the factory or aftermarket, another third of vehicles are SUVs, most of which are significantly larger than necessary to be fit for purpose for the driver and occupants.
This situation was /caused/ by government regulation and it can be fixed by government regulation. It's absolutely absurd the gargantuan vehicles most people drive in the US, and the fact that we let people turn their vehicles into monster trucks and then operate them on public roads with impunity. I don't care how small someone's dick is, they don't get the right to drive a truck down the highway that can literally drive /over/ a modern standard sedan/hatchback. The continuing absurdity has turned into an iterated prisoner's dilemma which has resulted in more and more people buying SUVs and crossovers who by every measure do NOT need them. Absolutely is out of control, and it negatively impacts everyone, including the drivers of these vehicles.
I was all for this legislation, thinking the positives outweighed the cost, but after reading the list of affected services, I now disagree.
Why didn't they just legislate that all social media apps content must be like Facebook in 2005. No recommendations, chronological timeline only, and you only see posts from users you explicitly added. That would have benefited everyone forever, and not enabled some small subset of apps to collect your govt id or the law to be irrelevant when the next popular social network comes along.
They effectively banned only the popular cigarette brands, instead of regulating nicotine.
If services would argue this would make them all the same, then add a clause where the user can opt in to have an algorithm shove content at them like now if they are over 18.
This way everyone can use the basic service for true socializing, but the harmful stuff is actually regulated out by default.
Too much money etc for this to ever happen, but geez they could have done a lot better.
I wish there was regulation that you have to sell and maintain a working product, so that open source devs don't have to waste their time fixing proprietary products.
It looks like these laptops are usually sold with Windows; are you saying that every manufacturer should be obligated to develop drivers for every software which is theoretically compatible with it? Or are you just saying that we need even more caveats in the interminable EULAs we all just click through?
Maybe the obligation should be to provide adequate information about the hardware, so anyone could make a driver for their own software if they so desire.
Likewise on all downward business signals at my employer. I was thankfully in school during 09, but this easily feels like the biggest house of cards I have ever experienced as an adult.
Fair, lets then count income tax which makes it more like $500 assuming net taxes around 40%. I'm ignoring salary increase due to stock valuation going up because it complicates things and there is equal force from both sides of the argument.
So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year.
Edit: its not just a CEO but the C suite. 20,000 running without a C suite.
I don't think tax is that high for that income bracket but your point still stands for the rules of the current system. I agree with your sentiment there are way better ways to redistribute wealth.
Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country.
>Just dont discount what several hundred bucks means to way too many people in such a prosperous country.
Sure.. but the real disposable income has increased by a decent amount over the years. Just in the last 10 years (including covid) the real disposable income has increased by over 20%.
> So you decide: 20,000 companies running with a CEO being paid like an average person. And every citizen gets $500 in their account per year
In these contrived scenarios people will always choose the anti-CEO scenario.
You could restructure your hypothetical scenario such that the money was lit on fire instead of being paid to executives and you’d still find support from people who are just angry at executives getting paid a lot.
I agree but funnily enough - lighting it on fire will have the same consequence as every citizen being paid $500 (assuming similar spending patterns of CEO's and workers which is an exaggeration).
You might be interested in https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-... which talks about the studies showing low effects for just giving money to Americans. It seems like just giving people money is still unproven to have impacts to make people healthier, happier (beyond the year they start giving money), get them better jobs, or improve their children’s intellectual development. There's still hope for targeted programs, but it changed my view on blanket payments.
Or is this just another "trump did illegal thing but nothing will happen" kind of scenario?