Being queer doesn't make you worse at law. Preexisting discrimination and discriminatory forces in law world is causing that number to be so much lower than the wider population and the best way to forcefully address that is to increase representation and visibility in that population.

These are elite positions. Everyone on the short lists, queer or not, is qualified for the job. The choices made at that point are not for picking the "best" candidate because there is no "best" candidate. There's different choices. Different viewpoints. Different backgrounds. Different politics.

And I think the Biden administration is making good choices as far as appointments go. Intentional choices. Choices meant to make a culture shift that needs to happen.


To be clear, I object to both comparisons-- both to the population-wide demographics and the law-wide one -- though I do clearly think it's a conversation worth having.

Because it fundamentally misunderstands what the purpose of representation is. Representation is not an ends on itself, so "matching" population demographics is useless for anything other than identifying likely discrimination is not doing anything useful. It's not a numbers game. There's no "but hey, look how close we truly are to achieving good representation!" It's not that, because it's still remarkable that this many queer people have been put into power. They're the exception to prove the rule that the field is still inherently hostile to them.

The goal isn't "equal" or "proportional" representation or anything like that. The goal is elimination of the systemic discrimination. The goal is ensuring that brilliant new minds aren't being filtered out for being different from the social norms. This is back to the old RGB quote.

admiralteal, (edited )

Literally everyone censors speech, and is fine with it. Everyone, with exceptions so scant that may as well not exist at all.

Laws that prohibit workplace harassment. Defamation. Laws that punish incitements to violence. Laws that punish fraud and confidence scams. Laws against insider trading. Even things like RICO. These are ALL, in varying forms, limits on speech that are basically uncontentious to most normal, well-balanced people. These are limits on speech so ubiquitous and accepted that people have actually somehow convinced themselves that somehow "free" speech is clearly categorically different than these other things even when it plainly isn't.

The only people sincerely for (edit: total) free speech are honest-to-god anarchists. True "free speech absolutists" basically do not exist, and when someone claims to be one it really just means they want to be able to get away with using racial slurs in public.


That's libertarianism in a nutshell, though. A political ideology founded from liberalism which claims to reject all of liberalism while also being just the same as liberalism embraced by people who actually kind of hate liberalism. It's a lot of very confused voters registered to that party.

admiralteal, (edited )

That's literally and unironically what they want you to do.

They want to destroy walkable cities because somehow, having financially-sustainable small towns featuring outdoor life and engaged communities is partisan. They do not want main streets to exist, only box stores from national brands on the edge of town. They do not want to have to know their neighbors because they believe all other human beings that life near them are potential hostiles, so the best way to live is permanently indoors, getting into your car to protect you from the outside even before opening the garage door to avoid ANY interactions with others.

They want everyone to be forced to only drive cars because being forced to comport with one very specific, expensive, unpleasant way of life that leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary annual deaths and unbelievable isolation and loneliness is "freedom".


Most of the water-born microplastics are tire dust. Byproducts of car-dependent modern life.

And, as someone else in the thread quoted, another requirement of the law is a full ban of any policies designed to increase walkability or access to transit, which would be the way to fight back against those microplastics.

The most important rule for conservatives: they do not want to turn over a better world to their children. They want their children to suffer in all the same ways they did. They believe progress is inherently bad and must be resisted. And I mean, of course they do... that's the definition of "conservative".

Research puts dollar figure on climate savings from electric school buses | A substantial portion of the half-million school buses in the United States are “highly polluting old diesel vehicles” (

Replacing the average diesel bus would generate a benefit of $84,200 per bus, split nearly evenly between health and climate effects. Such a replacement would cut 181 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per bus and reduce childhood deaths and asthma cases from diesel emissions, the researchers conclude....


Batteries have also seen huge price drops.

Even in the past 10 years, the cost per kWh has gone from something like $270 to $180. These prices maybe aren't quite in the full freefall solar has seen, but they're declining very rapidly even absent any technological quantum leaps.

Unlike transit busses, school busses only need to be in service a couple hours a day and can basically trickle charge overnight. They require far lower range on top of the declining battery prices. While I don't know the original NYC study being referenced, it is zero surprise that the school busses are a lot lot lot cheaper.

BEV transit busses are, frankly, a stupid fucking idea. Almost as stupid as battery trains. Put up a pantograph and electrify it properly -- it costs a fraction as much over relevant lifecycles.


Significant tranches of the Democratic caucus aren't either, when it comes to police reform. Being a member of a political party is a pretty damn loose affiliation and the Dems are the tent of anyone who isn't actively trying to pursue a fascist ethnotheocracy, so the idea that just because you have a (D) next to your name means you'd necessarily be an enthusiastic supporter of a police reform bill is just a nuts. Like, who really thinks Joe Manchin's going to vote for this one absent it doing some random, heinous thing that specifically benefits him personally?


I agree with what you're saying, but also the reality of Saudi Arabia being a good ally is changing rapidly in the last couple years.

They aren't standing up to Russia. They aren't moderating Israel (potential normalization with the Saudis was likely the proximate cause of the October 6th attacks -- which of course entirely achieved the goal of ending that normalization). They're pledging to "extract every molecule" of fossil fuels to keep the world hooked even while their own internal development clearly shifts towards transition.

I'm not sure the relationship is paying off for the US. Maybe that's why this topic is being stirred back up -- to get a bit more leverage against them. The Saudis seem to be VERY concerned with the kayfabe of being a functional, modern state (in spite of the fact that they're a lunatic theocratic monarchy), so this kind of dirty laundry may be of influence to them if it really is undeniable.

I don't envy the folks in the diplomacy trades who have to consider and interpret all these factors and come to a real conclusion about them.


Honestly, do this anyway. Default to they/them until someone requests otherwise. It's the best way to normalize it for people who don't present in an assumable way, without exposing yourself to the same level of potential retaliation that asking leads to.


Gross. You care more about preserving the delicate feelings of bigoted snowflakes than actual vulnerable people.

It's not misgendering if you use non-gendered language. Non-gendered language is not gendered. Grammatical gender is idiotic and we'd be better off without it.


Contrary to "common wisdom" and industry lies, LNG is not significantly better emissions than coal. When exported, especially across the Pacific to e.g., Japan, it's sometimes within just a couple of percentage points the lifetime emissions as coal.

Solar is already a vastly cheaper form of energy than fossil gas and wind is rapidly going down those learning curves (it's already comparable in many geographic areas. The issue that US energy utilities simply don't care. They only really know how to deal with "dispatchable" power generation. They don't want to change. They don't want to adapt. They'd rather spend more (ratepayer) money doing things the old way. Even though we already have the technology to deal with nearly all of the "reliability" issues that come with renewable generation.

Your voice can influence this. In many states, the energy utilities are regulated by a regulatory commission -- and those commissioners, frankly, aren't getting a steady stream of feedback. They are often elected officials. I've got one of my commissioner's cell phone number -- they can sometimes be THAT accessible -- and they're in charge of holding these monopoly utilities to task.

We don't need a global socialist revolution to seriously address climate change. Tons of progress is already happening, even under the regimes we're currently stuck with. Don't just read articles. Talk to friends and family. Take action. Make calls. Vote. Donate. It's a still a winnable battle so long as you don't let the doomsayers suck all the air out of the room, but it gets less so every day that people stand by.


Google's been seriously injuring and killing scores of people a year through their lack of content moderation on YouTube alone. For not enforcing their policy against harmful or dangerous acts.

Seriously injuring or killing someone is the least of the things they're going to do with this new shit.


Real answer? Because those tariffs will have barely any meaningful effect one way or the other. They're pure politics and no one deep in the field really cares that much. The solar tariffs are fairly annoying, but solar is by far the cheapest form of energy production even if material costs blast up a full 50% -- especially since those cost increases have no effect on the far more important cost center of trade labor. If Biden has a legacy other than supporting genocide in Gaza, it will be as the climate president.

The Inflation Reduction Act is the biggest suite of climate subsidies the world has ever seen. It's an industrial policy so huge that it would make Stalin sweat. Except... it's working. Clean energy industry in the US was doing OK before and is just exploding now. Legitimately hard to overstate how huge it is, and even countries you think of as having intense green energy programs are looking at the US with some envy. And the design of the bill is such that it spins up virtuous cycles. As industries and slow money move in to take advantage of the bill, they become part of the constituency to keep it alive and continue to build up more and more of the same investment. If it can just survive a few more years, it'll be almost as impossible to repeal as medicare.

And none of that seems to matter. Because no matter what they do it'll never be good enough for the loud voices on the left. If you aren't achieving global socialist revolution that means any progress you do achieve is a waste of time and no different than the actual allies of global apocalypse. There's always some stupid little "just one problem!" nitpick that people on places like the fediverse think reduces an entire policy to ashes even though it just isn't even particularly important.


They work basically unimpaired into zone 4b, which includes all of northern Michigan. This encompasses something like 98% of the entire human population of North America and even the vast majority of Canada.

They will need some support on the coldest days in up to zone 2b, at which point their efficiency drops to a mere 100%.

You're spreading fossil fuel industry-driven FUD. Stop it.


Those blades are way, way, way bigger than you think they are. They are moving extremely fast even at normal speeds. That 15ish rpm converts to around 1.5 rads/s. Modern windmill blades are something like 70m long -- so we're talking speeds of 100m/s or north of 350 kph / 220 mph.

Pretty comparable speeds to the windspeeds of the tornadoes in question during routine operation. Of course, there's a lot more intensity with a tornado, but windmills are actually designed to let most of the air pass them unimpeded because it makes them work more efficiently.

Of course, their energy production will be deliberately curtailed under high winds because the generators and infrastructure hooking them up can only handle so much -- they'll brake the blades, or rely on back-emf from the motors, or some combination of those factors to prevent them from over-generating.

Of course, unlike typical wind being harvested by the windmills, the tornado's airflow is far from laminar, meaning that even with their highest intensity, they will be losing a lot of efficiency in driving those blades.

...the tornado, of course, will simply knock them down.


Putting Dijon on a hotdog or wearing a tan suit was considered a major political blunder in recent history.


It's also not just voting against Trump.

Biden on climate is an A student. The inflation reduction act, according to basically every climate wonk, gives us a real chance at achieving necessary goals both under its regime and thanks to further future legislation it certainly unlocks. Things are looking less bad right now than they have for a long time in spite of all the worsening indicators. And it's written with intense virtuous cycles built-in that will make it VERY sticky policy once it builds up a couple of years worth of inertia. The fact that he got it past an overtly hostile senate that had at least 51 anti-science, anti-climate, fossil fuel shills turning up to vote is nothing short of a policy miracle.

Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to reverse everything that could still be reversed about the IRA (a frustratingly large amount, unfortunately, could still be undone by executive fiat thanks to its still-developing political base). He's vowed to double down on every kind of fossil fuel subsidy. He's vowed to restore coal power even though it's horrible for everyone involved and the most expensive kind of energy production. He's vowed to fight windmills just because he doesn't like their aesthetics -- literal quixotic shit.

I won't defend Biden on Israel for even one millisecond. His position is heinous. It's evil. And if he loses in November, it will almost certainly be the reason why and he'll deserve it. But it will probably also spell actual global war and apocalypse fueled by climate within all of our lifetimes. It may sound dramatic, but a Trump win will bring us from feast to famine and may spell the actual end of our civilization. We don't have enough time to be hit with another decade of policy setbacks in the field.


A less credulous interpretation of this kind of study is that it indicates an issue with our mathematical models.


Jodie Whittaker was a fabulous doctor. I really liked her whole vibe, her personality, her presentation. I wanted to love that doctor so much.

But the stories were boring and the writing was lame.

An otherwise-mediocre show with great writing can still be a huge success, but even an otherwise-flawless show with bad writing will always suck. I'll never understand why all the TV producers think they can get away with cutting all the corners on writing.


It's actually a pretty natural consequence of their deregulated energy market that places very little priority on reliability. As someone who cares deeply about climate: there's a lot to be learned from the stupid Texas grid.

Solar is just flatly cheap. A fraction the price of other energy production. It has a huge competitive advantage whenever it is working, and the deregulated Texas market, in way over-simplified terms, gets rid of a lot of the most horrible nonsense related to interconnection that is probably THE biggest impediment to adding WAY more renewable energy to the American grid -- along with the related issues of underutilized and inadequate transmission infrastructure.

Of course, the other much-discussed obstacle is the reliability issue -- that is, that the sun doesn't isn't always shining. A hugely, hugely, hugely overstated issue by allies of apocalypse, but one that is reliable and useful to political monsters. But since Texas doesn't emphasize reliability in the regulatory design of their grid, it doesn't even matter; bad-faith politicians will say what they will but at the end of the day the market economics can trample all over the politics.

Wind isn't quite cheaper than natural gas, but it's quite competitive and has some operational advantages (IRA subsidies, operational/maintenance advantages, the advantage of not being fucking hated by the surrounding communities, and so on). And Texas has large tracts of extremely reliable wind, plus it forms an extremely complementary supply curve to solar.

The free market, in many ways, prefers renewables.


It's undeniably better practice. Better for the land, better for the animals, often even better for the farmers. But meat production will always be an ecologically intensive, extractive process. We will always be better off not doing it at all compared to even the best of the best regenerative practice. no, it's not a climate-friendly solution. If you want climate-friendly meat production, we're probably talking about meal worms or some such, never beef.

I'd like to see all meat producers held to high standards of regenerative ag because it offers a LOT of benefits. It's better land utilization, it's better for drought, it's better for pollution, it's a thumb in the eye of the chemical corpos, and more even than that. And when you hear the stories produced by the regenerative ag advocates for the farmers, they aren't really talking about climate much at all. This is correct. The story of regenerative ag has nothing to do with preventing climate change and anyone claiming otherwise is either deluded or greenwashing.


Irrelevant to commercial. A reasonably big restaurant doesn't get enough amps in the panel to replace all their gas equipment with induction, especially in grid-strained California. Not unless it's new construction in an area with quality 3 phase electrical service.

It was a huge, huge, huge mistake that the places that banned new fossil gas installs made it ALL installs instead of just residential.

They made an enemy out of the national restaurant association for no reason and have faced huge setbacks in otherwise-good legislation as a result. It's all just so stupid and shortsighted. Especially since, as the other guy pointed out, commercial gas cooking is not a major contributor. Even just compared to the leaky, awful, terribly, idiotic residential fossil gas network.


Yeah, I run into it a lot in my smallish, somewhat historic town -- though I am not a developer. SO many places where all the staff constantly bitch about how they're always popping breakers and all that stuff. Or where they have to go around sharpie-ing faceplates where you must not plug in kitchen equipment.

Line cooks, in my experience, don't really give that much of a shit about the equipment they need to use. It works or doesn't. The comfortability of the space matters most, and as you said, electric's a huge winner for comfortability.

Chefs are sometimes VERY opinionated about the stupidest shit, and egotistical to boot. You can't really argue with the dude who tells you he KNOWS gas is better (but has never actually used electric). Fortunately, these are a dying breed. Even the NYC pizza joints are switching to electric because it's just plain better.

But if there's one universal truth above all others with the restaurant industry, it is that it is entirely allergic to ANY kind of capital investment. Rewiring a kitchen to switch from gas to electric is just a non-starter. Having to pay an extra however many thousands during initial build to get the utility to bring in 3 phase? Good fucking luck. They'd always rather MacGyver a sketchy solution than invest the money now to improve profitability and quality of life in the long-term. The flipside is, that means buying a $150 commercial induction hob is WAY cheaper than trying to add an additional gas burner -- the latter is usually a flat non-starter, the former means a guy can (lol health code) be sent to poach eggs in the break room.


We can't claim to know it left them with "bad" employees. I think there's vanishingly little evidence that recruiters actually go after the "good" employees effectively -- I'm pretty skeptical that a pro recruiter actually gets you better employees, they just make the process of getting employees way less stressful. We also have no reason to assume that a good or bad employee is correlated in any way with caring about not returning to office -- it's possible very bad employees are just as likely to quit as very good ones. How do you even tell good from bad, anyway?

What this "return to office" stuff definitely DOES do is preferentially retain the most obedient/desperate employees. Which may be part of the goal, along with low-key downsizing.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • osvaldo12
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • mdbf
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • ethstaker
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • everett
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines