Originally enacted in 1964 to protect workers during the transition from private to public ownership of mass transit, the provision now blocks the modernization of transit operations: no legacy US heavy-rail system has automated its operations to permit trains to run without onboard crew. In contrast, countries like France and Canada, each with robust labor protections, automate without conflict.

Okay, can we get those robust labor protections first, and then fully automate public transit?

Ok so when a dozen people all go to say the same thing, when do the other people get to speak? 36 minutes later. They get 3 minutes each. These elected officials can spend a half fucking hour listening to their citizens.

Energy is not only a property of matter. Photons have energy, no mass, and are not matter but in fact force carrier particles.

Also of note: According to the Financial Times, some of these SPV deals are being cut up, pooled together and resold to investors as new asset-backed securities.

Oh good. That risk-obfuscating strategy has never caused any economic problems and has only had positive results.

It's cover. They're not laying off because of AI. They're laying off to make line go up.

An inquiry could ultimately see justice department officials, including the acting attorney general, brought before her court to testify.

Don't waste time having them testify. They have no qualms lying under oath. Subpoena documents. That's the only way to get at the truth.

One of the big problems is that the world continuously gets more complicated and needs commensurate regulation, but the legislative branch can only handle so much complexity and expertise directly. So it has been delegating more and more of its regulatory powers to agencies that are supposed to be staffed with the experts that can handle that complexity and have that expertise.

But in our system "executing" the law is under a different branch, controlled by the President, so it in effect transfers that power to that office. Congress can't just "take it back" without solving that underlying problem, or the power they take back will vanish due to their lack of capacity to execute it effectively for the good of the people.

I'm skeptical of just a mathematical model without tying it to real data, no matter how hard the researchers try to make it "realistic." You can make a mathematical model that says anything. That said, I did find this part interesting:

Burgess and his colleagues delved into the mechanics of ambition after earlier work found that fisheries performed best when boats stopped searching for more fish once they reached higher-than-average catches. They wanted to see if the mathematics supported the strategy in other realms of life, too.

Violate the law. The US civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s have a lot of success stories, and stories of challenges/failures that careful study of would really equip today's civil rights advocates well.

The change will de-emphasize the effects of methane, a main component of natural gas that has a potent effect on the climate but breaks down more quickly than carbon dioxide.

I hate language like this. Carbon dioxide doesn't break down. It's stable. So methane breaking down in 100 million years would be "more quickly" than carbon dioxide. This turn of phrase puts an inaccurate picture in the layman's mind of greenhouse gases that's very avoidable. Just say "but eventually breaks down, unlike carbon dioxide." There, fixed in the same number of words.