Like when a person splits an infinitive?![]()
It varies a lot depending on your local generation mix. A state with mostly coal plants will make a person's electric car relatively dirty from a carbon standpoint in comparison to a state that relies heavily on natural gas generation for its electricity, given that natural gas plants emit less than half the carbon a coal plant does. So, as with many things, it's complicated.OK, that's a good point. Let me ask you a question, though. (It's not a trap -- I don't know the answer.) What has a lower carbon footprint -- a mile driven in an electric car powered by a fossil fuel plant or a mile driven in a current car?
I'm not sure I'd call nuclear worries "NIMBY hysteria" unless you're willing to live right next to one. You and I have the luxury of choosing to live in nice leafy suburbs away from dirty (or lethal) industry. The people who don't have that luxury should fight tooth and nail to keep that stuff away from them.
That is a really excellent question, and I don't know a definitive answer - in fact, I'm not sure a definitive answer is really possible. On the face of it, it's an easy question: oil has two paths to create the motion of the vehicle which is the end result that you desire
If I am not mistaken, electric cars still use oil as a lubricant, do they not? and aren't there some serious pollution concerns related to the production and disposal of the lithium batteries they use?
I'll be taking this with a healthy dose of skepticism considering they're announcing some unknown breakthrough at precisely the same time they're announcing that they need commercial partners (money).
Well, here's the thing.
On the one hand, yes, obviously they're white collar criminals looking to hook venture capital. Their hands drip with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents. That's who they are; it's who they've been for thirty years. Fine.
On the other hand... do you know how many truly brilliant folks they have managed to lock up over the last generation? The nerds who launched the Silicon Valley revolution aren't working out of their garages anymore. The guys who are truly, truly, staggeringly good at these kinds of problems (leaving aside they are 80% Aspy and 90% sociopath) have been sucked into these incredibly high-paying gigs. Who knows? Maybe the little bastids actually cracked it.
The stinger in the tail is "We never forget who we're working for." If you think the early applications of this technology (if true) are going to be for the good, you are a very nice person who I will buy coffee and enclose in bubble wrap to keep your naiveté fresh.
On the one hand, yes, obviously they're white collar criminals looking to hook venture capital. Their hands drip with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents. That's who they are; it's who they've been for thirty years. Fine.
On the other hand... do you know how many truly brilliant folks they have managed to lock up over the last generation? The nerds who launched the Silicon Valley revolution aren't working out of their garages anymore. The guys who are truly, truly, staggeringly good at these kinds of problems (leaving aside they are 80% Aspy and 90% sociopath) have been sucked into these incredibly high-paying gigs. Who knows? Maybe the little bastids actually cracked it.
The stinger in the tail is "We never forget who we're working for." If you think the early applications of this technology (if true) are going to be for the good, you are a very nice person who I will buy coffee and enclose in bubble wrap to keep your naiveté fresh.
This is what I love about you guys. It's the simple joy you find in the pure pleasure of being alive in the moment.
You are confusing inner (real) life with political (abstract) life. It is entirely consistent to be both personally happy, centered, and spiritually certain, with also being clear eyed about the way political life works and understanding that the predators are on the prowl.
I understand. Still, the volume of uncontrolled rage in that post was striking.
Anyone would have to admit that free enterprise has done more for human progress throughout history than top-down decrees. Right? Or is all free enterprise pure evil?
Free enterprise is good. Corporate consolidation is bad. The biggest enemy of the free market isn't government; it's cartel.
tl; dr: Too big to fail is too big to be permitted to exist.
I'm not familiar with the players. Are you wary of Lockheed as they exist (and they have competitors, right?) or the potential of them consolidating with other giant corporations?
The big five (LockMar, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, GD) compete ostensibly, but they have interlocking boards and are deeply incestuous at the senior management level.
It is entirely consistent to be both personally happy, centered, and spiritually certain, with also being clear eyed about the way political life works and understanding that the predators are on the prowl.
For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to the actions by interest groups when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest groups are implemented.
Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. Often cited articles include Bernstein (1955), Huntington (1952), Laffont & Tirole (1991), and Levine & Forrence (1990). The theory of regulatory capture is associated with Nobel laureate economist George Stigler, one of its main developers.
Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature. This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture). [emphasis added]