So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.
Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.
> So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.
No, I’m saying people who think the state is successful because of its state government and not because it’s a part of the US are out of touch. If California wasn’t part of the US, Silicon Valley would be a shadow of itself or wouldn’t exist at all.
It thrives on being the tech Mecca for the youth of the entire US to go to school there and get jobs there. If there were immigration barriers there, there would be significant incentive to just go to something in the US (nyc, Chicago, Miami, wherever). California had a massive GDP because that’s where US citizens are congregating to do business, not because California is good at making businesses go. Remove spigot of brain drain from the rest of country and cali would be fucked.
Secondarily, Silicon Valley wouldn’t have started at all without the funnel of money from the fed military, NASA, etc. But that’s not worth dwelling on if the scenario is California leaving now.
My overall point is that California has immense success due to reasons far outside of the control of its state government. The state has done very little to help the tech industry apart from maybe the ban on non-competes. When people start to credit the large GDP to the government, that’s some super scary shit that leads to ideas that will quickly kill the golden goose.
I'd go stronger still: the good things about any state has little to do with the governance.
Innovators, makers, risk-takers, etc., are who makes the good things happen. The very little needed is rule of law, and that's about it. Beyond that, it starts distorting society quickly: measures meant to help someone inevitably cost several someones else, and become weapons to beat down competitors.
You have to be building a lot of big flat things to justify the floor space a drum sander takes up. If you already have one, sure, use it, but floor space is by far the most expensive thing in most shops.
The power and dust collection requirements tend to be getting towards the bigger side of things for a drum sander as well. Most truly useful sizes are at least 240V if not three-phase.
I think that's an exaggeration, especially for cutting boards. Unlike thickness planers, most drum sanders have an open frame. Even the smallest 16" units can handle projects that are 30" wide. And these units work perfectly fine off 115V.
You can crank out cutting boards like that with not much more than a bunch of clamps, a small drum sander, a miter saw, and a good vacuum cleaner - garage-friendly and under $2,000. The issue is the hours of manual labor you have to put into this, especially since people are not used to paying hundreds of dollars for a decorative cutting board.
There are custom cutting board businesses out there, but they just use a CNC mill to cut personalized shapes or messages in common stock. That's a larger capital investment but far less manual work.
It's a huge exaggeration. My Supermax 19-38 has helped me produce cutting boards larger than any normal person would want and it's a 120v machine. It does require dust collection but so does a table saw, planer and jointer, which are other machines you'll need to make a decent cutting board.
Now drum sanders do take up space (though mine is on wheels and can roll to the side when not in use), and aren't the easiest machines to use and maintain. But when it comes to cutting boards it vastly reduces the labor. Most of the time is just waiting for the glue to dry.
The main advantage of being an early employee is that you can leave.
Founders generally need to go down with the ship, early employees do not. If the growth trajectory starts to falter after 1.5-3 years, just get out of there and try another company. Let the founders clean it up (and you have equity in case they do).
The good news is that electric car charging will be mostly done whenever power is cheapest and demand is lowest so it should be the easiest possible extra demand for the grid to support.
If a homeowner has a home charger, and comes home from work and immediately plugs their car in, won't the charging start right during peak demand? I guess there could be software in cars that tells them to delay charging past evening peak demand, but I guess there will be a mechanism for the car owner to bypass that.
I'm a homeowner with a home charger. When I get home I plug in. It doesn't usually start charging until way late in the evening. Currently it's just on a timing schedule I set up once, but soon it'll be linked to my electric provider to automatically shift to whatever is an off-peak time for them and I'll get a discount on my bill. In the end I can still tell it to just go ahead and charge but typically it's going to sit there overnight and I can normally go a few days between charges anyways.
Pretty much every recent model EV can do this on its own. Many EVSEs (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, the "charger") that have any level of smarts can also do this. My EVSE is just a dumb one, it just tells the car it's capabilities and it's up to the car to choose when to charge.
Adding an EV to my house didn't change my peak usage at all.
> I guess there could be software in cars that tells them to delay charging past evening peak demand, but I guess there will be a mechanism for the car owner to bypass that.
The most widely adopted EVs in the US and elsewhere have had this feature from the start.
One of those people died of a gunshot wound, so whether it was self-inflicted or not, their age and health and any related statistics have nothing to do with the death.
> One of those people died of a gunshot wound, so whether it was self-inflicted or not, their age and health and any related statistics have nothing to do with the death.
Mental health is health. Age and physical health are factors that can effect mental health, particularly when someone is under tremendous amounts of stress. Their age and health could very well have something to do with their death.
I also stopped there for the afternoon on a train between Florence and Cinque Terra. Was super convenient.
Standing under the leaning tower I legitimately felt like it was going to fall on me. It's a one of a kind experience. Well worth breaking up a train ride to see it and grab a meal.
It’s funny that this is getting downvoted when it is true.
It is more complicated though, the bankruptcy lawyers had to come up with some system to pay people back, and if not for the huge run up in crypto prices, which happened mainly after the policy was locked in, it wouldn’t be so bad.
Still though it does seem a very generous to the other FTX creditors (I doubt the equity holders are getting anything).
I do always find this funny as a major support for the lab leak theory. At that time there wasn’t any of the genetic lineage information that we have now which is the strongest evidence for zoonotic origin.
Why does anybody’s public or private beliefs at that point in time matter? Politics have always existed in science but generally over time the truth wins.
"Truth wins over time" means 50 years after you die and none of this matters anymore, someone will bravely say the truth with no fear of consequences. Especially when there is such a huge conspiracy to cover things up and the facts are so inaccessible to ordinary people.
>Why does anybody’s public or private beliefs at that point in time matter?
If someone demonstrated a pattern of lying in their own favor, isn't that important?
There is more than enough evidence now to make a strong conclusion, as the OP shows.
When the people were caught lying, only like 5% of the eventual information was known. It’s bad for their personal reputations that they were caught lying (or at minimum misrepresenting their own views), but their lies don’t change the underlying facts. I also think it is notable that the politically correct view turned out to be most likely correct.
I also strongly suspect a lot of lab leak proponents and/or anti-vaxxers are knowingly lying as well. But still it doesn’t change the underlying facts.
>There is more than enough evidence now to make a strong conclusion
I would disagree, all the evidence we have right now supporting zoonosis is circumstantial. The evidence being a mapping of early cases to around the market but given the shortcomings of this early evidence it's hard to rule out sampling bias: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a5102da1-9b47-4e11-...
But so far we have not found an intermediate host nor any closely related viruses in any animals yet. By contrast for the two previous spillovers SARS and MERS they not only identified an intermediate host, but they have found many closely related viruses in animals due to the fact the virus is circulating and thus branching off into many variants. Just take a look at the phylogenetic trees of MERS: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-... and SARS-CoV-1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1212604/
There could be liars or foreign agitators among the anti-vaxxers. That's why scientists need to be extremely aboveboard, because if they can't be trusted then people will turn to charlatans. I am against mRNA vaccines and skeptical of some others, but I'm not against well-established vaccines in general.
>It’s bad for their personal reputations that they were caught lying, but their lies don’t change the underlying facts.
If your job is to advise the country about how to conduct research and how to deal with a pandemic, it's not just reputational damage. The lockdowns virtually destroyed the economy and cost more than WW2. Fauci lied about not doing gain of function research and the media has his back.
The guy in the OP paid somebody $100k to beat him a debate using a self-defined empirical system, which somebody did, and the original guy now believes the lab leak theory even more.
Honestly I think I’d prefer if it were a lab leak, since that seems easier to prevent in the future, sadly for me I think the overwhelming evidence points otherwise. A quest for the truth isn’t real if the truth can only be one thing.
But look I’m not going to convince you, your faith is your own and I hope it serves you well.
Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.
reply