Being forced anywhere starts to sound like jail, except it would be a free for all in there. How would the policy force anyone into a camp without guards? Why would this work great?
US imports from China is ~2% of US GDP and largely in electronics [0], which are actively being targeted for sanctions. It will be painful but not catastrophic for the US to "de-risk".
China has to import both energy and food to sustain it's economy and population[1, 2]. There is very little domestic consumption to absorb their own production capacity and western countries are actively blocking their markets, like the EV situation in Europe or electronics with the US.
They have a very bleak demographic picture with a massively aging population along with some of the lowest fertility rates in the world[3]. It is odd to think of China as running out of people[4], but there will be two elder dependents for every working age person very soon.
There is an expectation of a full on collapse coming and local governments there are already $100TN+ in debt collectively[5]. If there was a pivot possible, would anyone provide that capital with what is happening with the Evergrande liquidation where foreign capital is the first to get wiped out?
Any company that hasn't pivoted to India or some other SEA country for manufacturing will simply be left behind.
I think we could agree generally that "the hostile work environment at Boeing ... led to his death." It is appalling that they could apply this kind of pressure to one of their own .
I'm not familiar with the process here, but does anyone know if the officer makes the determination that this is a "self-inflicted gunshot wound"? I thought that kind of assessment was for the coroner to determine over the course of the investigation.
Was it a handgun? I haven't seen weapon type reported anywhere.
> despite South Carolina's lack of reciprocity
There are no gun transactions in SC that require a carry license. Guns can also be transported on airplanes without carry licenses. They can also generally be transported via car without a license.
> with his native Washington state.
He is a Louisiana resident.
> so you think he stayed two weeks
I don't know how long he was there, but it doesn't matter. Not only is there is no waiting period for buying a gun in SC, he could have brought one with him on his trip.
> at the seedy motel?
It was a Holiday Inn, which is a hotel and is typically 3-star.
> I say he went back home between dispos.
Does a source say that, or are you making it up?
> So he skated background check after three days of non-response from ATF which automatically allows him to secure his firearm purchase?
NICS typically takes a couple of minutes to process. In SC, like the vast majority of the US, a firearm purchase takes 30 minutes or less.
Source on Occam's razor being anything more than a philosophical framework? Kind of silly to even bring that up in this scenario without looking at the possible motivations or lack thereof.
I would agree, except it is not some random average guy in a vehicle.
This was a concern citizen, who was a whistleblower against his employer, who had just begun a legal deposition, and there are billions of dollars at stake.
So - the scenario possibly just isn't that simple.
The coroner did say it appears to be self-inflicted, but that is not the final and formal judgement.
> The office of Charleston County Coroner Bobbi Jo O'Neal said that Barnett, who had been living in Louisiana after retiring from Boeing, died "from what appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
> Charleston police say detectives are actively investigating the case and are awaiting a formal cause of death as they try to determine the circumstances surrounding Barnett's death.
Why does it matter if they are getting government funding when the article is discussing government subsidy to the tune of $18B?
It might be more cost effective to service rural customers using Starlink. I know of many people working remotely using it. Some of which have fiber at the road in front of them, running it up to their rural home from the road would still cost tens of thousands out of pocket and opted for Starlink.
If we are all helping pay to deliver internet access to every part of this country, which I wholeheartedly agree with, could we do so in a way that maybe also helps R&D space travel instead of whatever Comcast or Verizon is doing?
Some of which have fiber at the road in front of them, running it up to their rural home from the road would still cost tens of thousands out of pocket
I had to trench a quarter mile and it was about $2K it only goes up a little bit with more distance, biggest cost was getting the trencher here on the big rig. For what it's worth that trenching would have been free had I requested the service when the government grant was issued to the ISP as it also covered trenching. I waited too long and it snowed which pushed me outside of that window. That was entirely my fault.
I take it you did this yourself but that is definitely not the cost of paying someone to do it for you. There is no way you can purchase the fiber and pay someone to trench and lay it for you for under $1.50/ft.
I would have preferred a program where in rural counties the up front cost of acquiring the $599 kit can be claimed as a tax credit.
In the FCC press release above,
> Collectively, these companies are committing to deploy broadband service of at least 100/20 Mbps service to over 700,000 locations and to maintain or improve existing 100/20 Mbps service to approximately 2 million locations in 44 states across the United States.
That is Starlink bandwidth and that 18B would pay for 30M install kits instead of just 2.7M homes.
> If people find these allegations credible—and most should
Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.
One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would.
The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
What evidence has been provided to meet this preponderance of evidence standard you are putting forward for moral evaluation?
You have one party making an allegation claiming they have documents to back it up and the other party denying innocence with claims of their own exculpatory evidence. Nothing has been shared to the public by either party for me evaluate who has the preponderance of evidence.
I do believe YouTube (or any other private platform) can and should be able to set it's own rules for participation so I see no issue with what they did here. If it's a right for someone to be on that platform then we should not be relying on a private party to guarantee that and make the necessary legislative changes.
I would just love to understand why I should be outraged at this individual before anything has been presented before me so that I can evaluate for myself.
> ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality
And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".
That is by design and I consider it a feature rather than a bug. We have options to live at a local or state level closer to our own values rather than being forced to conform at a national level.
Our national institutions are very accepting of LGBTQ as well as the federal government. Looking at LGBTQ equality by state, https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps the majority of the country, 29 states are fair or pro LGBTQ vs 21 that have negative policy or low equality.
Is it still counterculture when it is accepted and embraced by the overwhelming majority of citizens, education and cultural institutions, and protected by laws in the majority of the country?
Looking at the results disparity for "noble lie" and +covid both in the news and search tabs in Google is really eye opening given everything that has been released with twitter's moderation tooling with regards to deboosting and view filtering.
It seems only conservative and libertarian sources are covering the recent deposition in which he confessed that he knowingly made false public health statements in the early days of the pandemic. Both moderation and policy decisions were based on these statements.
The first article google returns is on slate.com which hardly qualifies as conservative/ libertarian. And it was fairly critical of Fauci for his suggestion mask usage was not recommended which he supposedly made in order to prevent a run on them.
What makes it noble and who gets to decide when the interest of the public good is sufficient to suspend the rights of the citizenry? If it is to be believed that most people lack the intelligence to behave in ways that are in their own and society’s best interest then what is the point of democracy? What other rights are we willing to suspend for the interest of the public? Even if it is justified in this instance, what else could the precedent be used for?
This subversion of rights and erosion of trust with government actors directly pushing for censorship, no matter what the intentions, will cast doubt on the system as a whole and any purpose it might have in the short term is far outweighed by the damage it causes in the long term.
I highly recommend reading the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, specifically articles 51 through 55.
