It’s not really a “Tesla thing”, it’s an electric motor thing.
Seriously. My Nissan Leaf in Eco mode (which limits acceleration) feels peppy and is super fun to drive.
The US has limits on free speech in the name of public health and safety. There's no assumption of limitless free speech in the US. People who cry "free speech" typically have no understanding of its actual legal definition in the country and just want an excuse to be a bigoted asshole without consequences.
Twitter, not being part of the government, gets to decide what content they allow and doesn't need to worry too much about the legal definition of free speech. But, despite Musk's claims, Twitter is not actually a space of limitless free speech. They've taken plenty of actions since he took over that limit the speech of individuals he disagrees with. Twitter is just interesting in giving a platform to hate. There's certainly money to be made in monetizing hate (see Trump), but hopefully it doesn't work out well in the end for Twitter or Musk.
Please don't give their statement any credibility without adding the important context. Based in some truth may be technically accurate, but when compared to all the other possible causes of bird death it's basically inconsequential.
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds
If there's a solution, such as painting one blade a different color, then great. We can leave it up to the turbine engineers and wildlife agencies to address it, it doesn't need to be part of any news cycle. Giving their outlandish claim any air at all lends it far too much weight.
I don't want to just angrily respond to a quip, but have you not been paying any attention at all for the last 2 years? Every big win for Biden, along with countless federal judge positions, have gotten approved through Manchin's involvement. Sinema's, too, unfortunately. Sinema is a liar, deserves no respect, and Arizona would be happy to elect a progressive democrat in her place. But Manchin, as annoying as he is, is probably the best we can expect from West Virginia. Him switching to Independent doesn't mean a GenZ progressive is going to win his seat from him next election, it just means we lose an ally that is helping hold on to a very tenuous "majority" in the Senate. I don't like him, but you cannot discount the fact that he has helped the Democrats a hell of a lot in the last couple years by mostly voting alongside them.
I observed and participated in that exchange and I also found it to be fairly disheartening, especially since it came from an admin. All I can say is that you should try not to let it weigh you down.
For the most part, my exchanges on this site have been positive and supportive and I'd like to think that will be the norm in the future.
That seems pretty reasonable.
But also, insurance companies have way too much power here. They serve a valuable need, but the company made 15 years of 100% pure profit by ducking out at the first inkling there was of risk. There needs to be a lot more regulation around insurers of all types to help protect consumers.
They claim to be anti-abortion. In reality, many of their policies lead to increasing abortions: defunding education, defunding birth control, etc.
Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are those vehicles and they don't appear to be any heavier than their ICE counterparts. This article is just fear-mongering about EVs. Tire degradation may be a serious concern, but it's not actually unique to EVs and this article isn't really setting itself up to be taken seriously.
If the wealthy put in a significantly larger amount while working they will be entitled to a proportionally larger about of withdrawal later.
Why?
The wealthy put in more money towards taxes that go to other things which everyone benefits from equally. The wealthy don't get better roads just because they pay a higher tax rate. Why should they have uncapped benefits from social security? Retired folks being able to live off social security is a benefit to all of society, it's not meant to keep people at a high income with no other inputs. The wealthy can benefit from social security just like everyone else, and payouts should be capped, but they're currently benefiting from society at a greater rate pre-retirement so that should be reflected in their contributions today. If they want to be wealthy in retirement, then they have the means to invest and supplement their future social security earnings.
Edit: I just realized some of my statements conflicted a little. My point is just that tax contributions are not expected to deliver a 1:1 benefit to the contributor for the service that is collecting tax. You don't put in $1 towards roads and get $1 back of road use, or $2 towards schools and get $2 of education back. We all contribute for the betterment and support of society at large. The wealthy can afford to contribute proportionally more. They are getting the benefits of their taxes back in greater proportion than the rest of us by way of their wealth, they do not make that money purely off individual effort. Supporting retirees ensures they are not a drain on society's resources and it's important that the wealthy contribute enough to make this possible.
Right, because the US immediately post-WW2 was an incredibly stagnant society with no visible benefits to the middle class.
Hubris, thy name is Rush
The criticism of this news is needlessly toxic. Maybe Hamas won't accept the offer, but that doesn't mean it's not a genuine attempt to save some children's lives.