I’d like to know more.
In all seriousness though, I thought it had some aspects of good, which was odd given that it’s satirical commentary on fascism. For instance, gender didn’t really matter and women were promoted, and while the shower scene was meant to show how fascism castrates the masses (or something like that, iirc), I thought it was a relatively wholesome scene, all things considered.
I could be wrong, but I think this could be due to how the states’ suit is worded? As in, I think it’s worded as, “you can’t do that in our state,” and not, “you can’t do that full stop.”
From another site:
Attorneys general from 18 other states also sued over the order in federal court in Massachusetts.
Brown [AG filing the suit] noted his lawsuit is similar, but said he felt Washington should lead a separate case because of “specific and unique harms that are brought here.” He also said that “we have a very good set of judges in our bench here in Washington, so I feel like this is the right place.”
(My emphasis.)
So, a good first step, and while this should be struck down in its entirety, my reading is that this was a lawsuit with limited scope, and the injunction matches the limited scope.
And over twice the GDP.
“Wow you signed the document in blood, you must be really hardcore.”
“No I’m just cheap.”
That’s…pretty believable.
While neat, this is not self-sustaining — it’s taking more energy to power it than you’re getting out of it. (You can build a fusion device on your garage if you’re so inclined, though obviously this is much neater than that!)
One viewpoint is that we’ll never get clean energy from these devices, not because they won’t work, but because you get a lot of neutrons out of these devices. And what do we do with neutrons? We either bash them into lead and heat stuff up (boring and not a lot of energy), or we use them to breed fissile material, which is a lot more energetically favorable. So basically, the economically sound thing to do is to use your fusion reactor to power your relatively conventional fission reactor. Which is still way better than fossil fuels IMHO, so that’s something.
That’s the American experience.
That may be your American experience, but it’s not everyone’s. We are a huge country, and while there’s of course truth behind the stereotypes, the glib “'Murica dumb” sentiment doesn’t exactly capture everyone’s experience.
My city (San Francisco) has been continuously improving bike infrastructure and is actively closing streets off to cars, we have a diverse food culture, we don’t allow gun stores in the city, and our de facto recreational drug is weed, not coke (though yes, the city does have a fentanyl problem). And I use metric units in lab for my California-based employer.
To address OP’s question, I’ll add a +1 to all the Ken Burns recommendations. Not an exhaustive history, but it’s a great start!
If you exclude blocked instances, you’re a lot higher than #5…
My home town is in bald eagles’ historic habitat, but there were never any growing up. In the past decade or so, they’ve started to reclaim it, which is pretty cool.
Yeah, we’re destroying the planet, but we are doing some things right. And this sort of good stuff only happens because we fight for it.
The amount of money you save (and invest) isn’t accurately depicted with this though. Living expenses don’t necessarily grow with take home, if you keep lifestyle creep to a minimum.
So what this means is that if you make $100k and save $10k/year, if you start making $200k you can save the same $10k/year, plus the entire additional $100k after taxes (let’s just say that’s $50k+). So you doubled your salary but your savings went up 6x+.
Wouldn’t 25 year olds still be in school for their doctorates though?
Yes, I think that’s the point — they skew the numbers upwards.
My hunch is that this is not restricted to TikTok…
play(1)? I’m getting cat $FILE > /dev/snd vibes…
One thing to keep in mind — the US is huge, both geographically and culturally. Flying from Los Angeles to Boston is further than London to Baghdad.
And likewise, the cultural “distance” between, say, New England or the Pacific Northwest and the deep south is extreme.
Of course there are things that affect (nearly) all Americans, but some context is important.
But this applies to the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and…well…much of the world, if these data are to be trusted.
But “included” doesn’t mean free. You still paid for it.
I’m curious how the battery percentage went up
Physicists hate this one weird trick…
Is that true though? As in, is it really that dangerous? It seems that you’ll dissipate power equal to the inefficiency times the nominal charging power, so something like 5V x 2A x inefficiency (inefficiency being 1-efficiency), which will probably be of order a watt.
I can use my car battery to charge itself without any issues — I just plug the red terminal to itself, and same with the black, which is to say, a battery is always connected in a way that “charges itself.”
I think the key is that the battery probably isn’t really playing a big role in OOP’s setup — electricity doesn’t “go through the battery,” it just goes from the charging input to the power output circuits, with the additional power (due to inefficiency) being provided by the battery.
I’m not sure though — the power output and the charging input are both regulated and (almost certainly) current limited. So I think (not positive…) that you’re basically dissipating your power in the inefficiency the charging and output circuits, with this power coming from the battery.
The inefficiency should (I think…) just be the round-trip inefficiency of the charging/discharging of your power bank — this should be way, way less than the short-circuit power dissipation.
The simplest toy model is to take a battery and try to charge itself. So you put jumpers on the + terminal and you connect those to the + terminal, and same for - (charging is + to +, NOT + to -). But this is silly because you’ve just attached a loop of wire to your terminals, which is equivalent to doing nothing. With charging circuits in between things get much more complicated, but I’m not sure if it goes full catastrophic short…
I think it depends on who’s doing the talking — oil execs aren’t idiots, so I think in their case, it’s the first two (intentional misrepresentation, bad faith).
Someone repeating what their uncle/Newsmax host/etc. said? Yeah, maybe that’s the latter…