This has been one [unintended?] consequence of AI promulgation. A direct disincentive toward the kind of open access that so used to be common and provided a lot of low-hanging fruit for independent developers trying to increase interoperability within their favorite niches.
So now not only is AI filling the web with garbage that poisons future model development[1], it provides incentive to further close and wall off access to (user-provided!) data.
>San Francisco just built a short subway to Chinatown. Not quite clear why.
Largely to set the stage for service to the Richmond.
>It's mostly a retirement village.
A testament to the resilience of the community in the face of an ongoing housing supply shortage. There is no doubt immense pressure from our typical economic processes to displace retirees from the place that they've lived their entire lives. You'd rather see old folks trapped in car-dependent suburbia, eventually unable to drive themselves to their basic needs?
> Musk admitted to his biographer Ashlee Vance that Hyperloop was all about trying to get legislators to cancel plans for high-speed rail in California—even though he had no plans to build it.[1]
He knew it would delay CA-HSR and political will for it nearly died.
I was curious whether this was true but it seems made up. The source is this part of his biography by Ashlee Vance. The actual quotes only support that he thought CA HSR was mediocre, which is what made him want to suggest something better. The idea that it was a tactic to delay HSR independently of a better project existing is just the biographer's speculation and isn't supported by his words.
Note also that the excerpt in this tweet omits the subsequent page, which discusses how Musk began taking the project more seriously after being surprised by the amount of public interest. You can find the biography on libgen.
That's sorta Musk's primary operating mode. See also: the whole Twitter purchase fiasco (for a recent example), or the expensive lawsuit against the actual co-founders of the larger, more-successful tech company that bailed out his failing startup as a favor to him but didn't stroke his ego enough on titles (for a "this has always been his way" example)
>if they're blue congressfolk they'll already want to make sure that NOAA survives
Even the blues will want to know that their constituents are paying attention. Swing state blues especially tend to lose their spine without support from their base.
Call them anyway and tell them to replace Biden with someone that can actually make a coherent case against Trump. These backroom discussions are happening right now.
Unfortunately, hostility towards science is increasingly bipartisan. The testing and tracing infrastructure spun up during the pandemic is largely defunct. We are reliant on wastewater sampling and hearsay as we ride the current COVID wave in service of a "pandemic is over" narrative.
They (DNC leadership) are already pushing him onto the ballot before the convention under the guise of meeting the Ohio ballot requirement, while ignoring that Ohio gave them an exception for the convention.
There is still concerted effort from both within[1] and outside the party[2] to push back against rushing the process. His fate is by no means guaranteed.
While there's almost certainly an element of "let's get this done and over with before the push to switch out Biden grows even larger," Jamie Harrison's explanation[0] would suggest that there's still a very real legal concern behind the push. Specifically, this little nugget[1] from the Ohio Constitution:
> [...]No law passed by the general assembly shall go into effect until ninety days after it shall have been filed by the governor in the office of the secretary of state, except as herein provided.[...]
So while Ohio eventually passed a law that would extend the deadline to avoid the original problem, because it wasn't done passed as an emergency law not subject to referendum[2] since that would have required a 2/3 majority, that law doesn't actually go into effect until 90 days after its passage.
In other words, the law changing the notification requirement from 90 days prior to a general election doesn't actually go into effect until 90 days after its passage...which is after the original notification deadline. It might seem like a technicality, but it all but guarantees the issue will have to be litigated and there's a significant possibility Democrats would lose the case in that case. Risking the possibility of Biden being left off the ballot as a result would be an absurd dereliction on the DNC's part.
The original post asked what can you do. Apart from hopelessness, you can put your body on the line. Hold a sign. Be present. Take up space. It's something.
Biden could be a literal corpse come election day and his cabinet/admin will still not paywall NOAA so why does that matter?
Both Trump and Biden are abysmal picks, for rather different reasons, but come November 9th, one of them will be chosen as the winner, because that's how the American electoral system is designed. If you don't like either of them, it doesn't matter. They still have explicit visions and plans for the future of the country, and surely you like one more than the other right?
People need to get this "perfect candidate is the enemy of the least-worst candidate" shit out of their head. The American political system was designed by a bunch of ethics and philosophy turbo nerds with an insanely optimistic view of how humans organize, a blatent neglect of already understood problems (refusing to create a term limit for the presidency even as Washington was trying to avoid being president for life, choosing to take no preventative action against the formation of political parties despite them obviously forming before the constitution was even finished, no formal system of succession, even though politicians were still dueling each other), and zero systems engineering or practical experience. It is flawed in all the ways you would expect a student project from first timers will be.
This stupid system is the one we are stuck with, and by design it can only be changed by participation, unless you are fine with murdering half your neighbors to enact a populist revolution and also convince everyone else to murder half their neighbors in your populist revolution.
Staying home isn't a protest. Not voting doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. Choose the direction you want the country to go in.
The standard of living in Japan for the vast majority of people is orders of magnitude better than it is here. It might not look good according to metrics that optimize ploughing society's wealth into the hands of a few billionaires, but it says something that an Uber delivery person can live walking distance to the popular restaurants that he delivers from.
Lots of things about the Japanese standard of living have little to nothing to do with monetary policy. Being able to park your bike just about anywhere without locking it up and without worrying about it being stolen, for example.
>have little to nothing to do with monetary policy.
False. A monetary policy that prioritizes universal access to basic needs leads to less overall crime. It may not be sufficient, but it is a major factor[1].
> The standard of living in Japan for the vast majority of people is orders of magnitude better than it is here.
But is that because of their economic policy or because of social norms?
> It might not look good according to metrics that optimize ploughing society's wealth into the hands of a few billionaires […]
Sweden also has a pretty good standard of living, less inequality than the US, decent economic growth (better than JP, lower than US), and has more billionaires on a per capita basis than the US:
People choose to vote for / elect people who are willing to implement various policies to achieve it. What is acceptable to the population is (partly?) determined by the norms of that population and society, and the acceptance of various ideas will determine what politicians will campaign for.
Japan's economic system was crafted in post-war reconstruction by General MacArthur. It's literally the furthest you can get from "social norms precede policy."
I think you're both right. IMO, Japan has a very high standard of living, but they could also be better off today if they'd been looser with fiscal spending (and spent that fresh-printed money wisely). For example, one of their major issues is an aging population; they could have directed spending towards subsidizing childcare, fertility treatment, parental leave subsidies, or even offering a salary to stay-at-home parents, to compensate and incentivize that valuable work. (They do have some of these policies, but their low inflation suggests they had room to do much more!)
Ridiculous. They have plenty of their own quick and convenient food readily available in convenience stores. Lawson, Family Mart or 7-11 are walking distance everywhere. A significant number of (typically underpaid, overworked) people don't cook for themselves in their tiny apartments and rely on these for basic needs.
The key is walking distance. The Japanese live in their cities, we Americans live in our cars.
As long as cheaper lines of credit (or straight-up massive amounts of cash on hand) remain more available to RE corporations than regular people looking for their first home then no, building more housing will never solve the problem.
There are structural problems with the demand side that also need addressing.
> building more housing will never solve the problem.
It only seems that way because in many popular metros around the country, demand has far outstripped supply for decades.
The problem is "solved" in areas that aren't as popular, with zero regulation on who's allowed to purchase homes; ordinary people can buy ordinary homes on ordinary incomes. But aspirational young people don't tend to move to such areas.
Why has this been the case in every area in our country? Because we have a policy at the national level that encourages speculation and hoarding. The problem is not just supply, we have a national aversion to shaping demand.
> The problem is "solved" in areas that aren't as popular,
The problem is absolutely not solved, in any place in our country[1]. You used to be able to maintain a minimum standard of living on a single wage earner's salary. That is not the case, literally anywhere in this nation any more.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10574586/#:~:te....