I'm specifically interested in answers from people who do believe that the Commandments should be posted in these locations, which I recognize is a subset of conservatives more broadly.
Bikes have been an option just to have a cost in tag, but were never used. Scooter rentals were used briefly in H&S UK, but it feels like everything else is either some form of large vehicle or on foot. Even the NYC mini-season, which as a single-city setting could have been great for use of bikes, scooters, ebikes, etc didn't feature.
Is it just that the DC press sees it unfolding right in front of them as they go about their day all the time? Or is it something else?
Iran currently has a 900MW power reactor operational at the Bushehr site and plans to build, at least by my cursory research, up to 5GW total of Russian designs. While obviously negotiations will progress, where should the US be coming to the table at first on these parts of the broader Iranian nuclear program?
All joking aside, the importance of sports is really one of Klein's biggest blind spots in his coverage of American society. A bunch of people in blue and orange running around setting things on fire outside his house/apartment/preferred cafe might finally change that.
That is, that Trump is unintentionally accelerating energy transitions especially when you look at the global level rather than just at the US.
The topical example here is obviously Tom Steyer and Xavier Becerra running for Governor of California, but stepping back from these two specific individuals I'm curious how you'd think about this in a more general sense, especially if the two hypothetical candidates were more similar in terms of the policy platform they claim to support.
It really does seem like the AI models are probably the most important, and definitely the most underrated, "endorsements" of this cycle.
This was generated from the YouTube recording of Klein's recent conversation with Chris Hayes using an automated transcription tool then edited by me for clarity:
> Hayes: I want to ask this question because we have a question from the audience and I think it sort of brings us to the data center fight because that's where like the rubber hits the road on all this like at some level I'm extremely sympathetic to people fighting the data centers. At another level, there's part of me that's like, well, this is just the NIMBY gun pointed at another target. Usually, I don't like the target they're pointing it at, but maybe this target's fine. This question from the audience is, how would a system of government in the abundance model balance ensuring public sector decisions are both effective and democratic? We're seeing these fights over data centers. How would it resist capture by big corporations?
> Klein: It's a big question. I'll keep it on the data center point. The thing I have heard talking to a lot of governors, mayors, representatives involved in the data center fights because to be blunt about this question, the way the American political system tries to balance this is that we elect people and they're supposed to be able to balance the various incentives and interests of society in a way that makes sense.
> And the thing that I think the people who are more forward-looking on this are saying is look, if you want all these data centers, what you have to do is not just pay for the electricity they're going to use. That's table stakes. This is a tremendous amount of investment, a railroad’s level of investment that is going to genuinely be either a huge strain [on] or an opportunity for transformation of a lot of our infrastructure, particularly our energy infrastructure. And so the the data center buildout has to be harnessed, in their view, to some public vision about how it is actually benefiting the communities it is part of. In this way, data centers are not like homes. When we argue that it should be easier to build homes, the reason it should be easier to build homes is [that] it is good for people to live in communities. Like the idea is not omni-building, right? I don't want you to be able to build more coal power plants because those are bad for communities. And the question of whether a data center is good for the community it is in. There's questions about the broader state, about the broader country, right? There's questions about the AI race with China. But the question of whether it's good for a community it’s in, that is something we actually know how to at least try to think about balancing. Now you could at the state level create framework legislation about what kinds of investments in the grid, what kinds of investments in water, what kinds of investments in creating modernization that is desperately needed in order to do big buildouts you want to force. And then if you create a clear set of rules of the road, then there's certainty on how to invest and what you can get done. But what all the people actually dealing with this at town hall meetings tell me, and I think they're right about, is that unless you can tell a town what is in it for them, they don't want it. And they're right. Nothing is in it for them except a bit of tax revenue. But that's not impossible if there's all this money behind it. Money is fungible. Money can do a lot of things, and particularly as an opportunity to modernize our energy grid.
There's two angles this anger is coming from, first you have a lot of people concerned about its impacts on the workforce, especially college students and recent grads (we've had a number of stories of commencement speakers being booed for discussing AI).
The second angle is largely rural communities angry about the expansion of infrastructure (data centers themselves and the energy infrastructure to serve them) for training and inference.
On the other hand the tech industry is a massive portion of GDP growth over the last few years and its executive class are major donors who've proven willing to throw large sums against candidates who irritate them.
33m, in a public service position that I like enough to stick around to full pension vesting. Also saving through a defined contribution portion (our plan is "hybrid" dc/db), an IRA, and a 457 but trying to figure out if I'm on track or not is a bit tricky and Google has not been particularly helpful here.