The water in the great lakes is controlled by an international compact that prevents water from being diverted from the Great Lakes to other watersheds. So, water utilization from the Great Lakes is constrained. The Wisconsin Foxconn project was a PR thing on both sides. Foxconn started scaling back it's promises and construction almost immediately after the agreement was signed. Scott Walker needed good PR and promised huge tax credits without much in the way of assurances.
> The water in the great lakes is controlled by an international compact that prevents water from being diverted from the Great Lakes to other watersheds.
Who said anything about diverting it? Pump cold water out, store hot water until it cools to ambient temps, then dump it back in the lake.
> Scott Walker needed good PR and promised huge tax credits without much in the way of assurances.
Yeah, this is my point, the state wasn't actually prepared to see the deal through despite nominally being industry friendly vs Arizona where they have some follow through.
It's probably not worth it to go through your insurance for the loss of food and perishables in the fridge/freezer. It counts as a claim on your home insurance and can result in increased rates or even your insurer dropping coverage at the next renewal.
As previously-stated: There was no rate increase that I could discern.
I did neglect to mention that there was also no issue with renewal, but perhaps I should be more careful to always use absolute rote specificity and leave nothing to implication.
They also sent over some folks with a tall ladder to have a look at the roof of this property that they insured, which was good since we had no means to visually inspect it from the ground. (The roof was fine.)
Anecdotally, that phone call to the insurance company had no downside at all.
It provided a roof inspection that I did not have ready means to perform on my own, and a relatively small amount of money (a couple of hundred bucks) that became very useful not just because of lost food, but also due to all of the other storm-related issues that we were not insured against.
Beyond that what about protecting against latch-ups and bit flips due to radiation? The environment is significantly worse in space so short term faults and long term damage should be a concern. There's a reason why radiation hardened hardware uses chips with really large features.
Yeah I was wondering about that too, the far-greater exposure to radiation... I don't know anything about how well-mitigated that is these days, but I'm sure it's a huge factor they would have in mind?
Not surprising, Bilt is apparently losing quite a bit of money on their rent payment rewards. Unless Mesa had a hefty transaction fee built in, they were probably burning through that 9M in cash pretty quickly.
And then we should be helping them on the state and federal level. I have replied a couple of times here that I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help them.
Unfortunately, they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that believe just the opposite on the state and federal level.
> And then we should be helping them on the state and federal level.
That’ll just lead to people on the opposite side of the spectrum (politically and in terms of being more urban) asking why their tax dollars are going towards a bunch of rednecks living in the middle of nowhere and destroying the earth with their heavily car-dependent lifestyles. _They should move to the city if they want a fire department! Otherwise, pay for it yourself or quit yer bitchin!_
> Unfortunately, they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that believe just the opposite on the state and federal level.
Perhaps the reason is because the people they “should” be voting for, according to you, are tied to a lot of social policies that these rural folks find deeply disagreeable. In a similar vein, if the 2024 Republican president campaigned on true free healthcare and massive taxes for the rich, you wouldn’t chide Democrat voters for not voting for that candidate on account of his social policies, now would you?
If the Republican politician campaigned on universal healthcare a larger social safety net etc I would be all for it.
But all that being said, I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat that said they wanted free health care and also bring back segregation and laws against miscegenation. The first affects me and everyone in my family and the second would affect my son and my soon to be daughter in law.
Democrats are not saying they want universal healthcare only for blue areas.
It’s taking my best to even go that far seeing they continue to deify people who demean people that look like me and say I - someone who has been coding either as a hobby or professional for literally 40 years - only got ahead because of “DEI”.
They can’t afford $5000 a year for software. I work in consulting, that is less than half of what my company bills me out for a week as a staff consultant.
You shouldn’t be stereotyping rural people like this. Rural communities differ wildly in population and political leanings. On average they are older, whiter, and Republican voting, but this is shifting. Many small communities that were dying out are being revitalized as artist colonies and tourist zones, and many active farming communities are gradually becoming more Hispanic. Framing urban vs rural as red vs blue plays into the hands of the divide-and-conquer strategy that elites use to prevent the population from successfully pursuing radical change.
If you look at a precinct-level map of election results you’ll see speckles of blue everywhere, as well as areas that were narrowly split. Those speckles represent real communities with people living in them. You can’t just write them off.
There’s also small towns or clusters of homes in the middle of nowhere where most of the residents disagree from the communities surrounding them. They don’t necessarily have enough votes to make a dent, but they also exist.
Assuming people’s politics or worth based on where they live leads to unpleasant outcomes.
Whose writing them off? I have repeatedly said that I have no issues with taxpayer funded assistance on the federal and tax level. But you can’t help people who are more interested in “owning the libs” and “fighting wokism”.
I was more responding to the notion that rural = Republican and therefore bad/hopeless. I think it’s a mischaracterization that needs to die before we can make real progress towards reform in this country.
Rural people face different challenges than urban people, although there’s some overlap. Finding agreement on the overlap—while attempting to solve the unique urban and rural problems in parallel—would be more effective than the tug of war that we have now. US politics has developed a winner-take-all attitude that’s clearly not working.
Even though I’ve been coding as a hobby or professionally for 40 years - and have done my bid in BigTech?
How is a gay/trans person suppose to find common ground with someone who literally thinks the country is going to be consumed in fire just because it’s legal for them to get married?
How is Latin American going to find common ground with someone who thinks they are taking their jobs, at the same time are not working getting welfare and lowering test scores and keeping them from affording housing? Oh yeah abs it’s only because of H1B visas that rural American can’t get one of them good tech jobs.
The only reason they are opposed to “socialist” programs is because there is an off chance that someone who doesn’t look like them might benefit.
Oh and by the way, I had a house built in Forsyth county and lived there for 6 years and moved to Florida and downsized when I knew I would be working remotely and after my youngest graduated. Yeah this Forsyth County.
Those folks haven’t gone anywhere. They have been overrun by more of the Romney/Bush type conservatives moving in.
You still see in Facebook groups where they are opposed to a Hindu temple nearby. But not opposed to a large church.
Myself, my wife, my (step)son and his (white) fiance still get disapproving looks there (where my son still lives) that we don’t get when they visited us in Orlando.
It’s not about a difference of “needs”. Yet I as a decently well off tech person continuously vote for policies that would help them and not me.
They are fundamentally opposed to a governmental system that works for everyone.
Do you think those Hindus building the temple in the middle of nowhere are voting Republican? What about Hispanic farmers who are getting harassed due to their ethnicity? What about rural LGBT people? It certainly sounds like you have some common ground with these people.
There’s rural people of all backgrounds (including straight white folk) who feel that the system has failed them and there’s no point in voting. Roughly 40% of eligible people don’t vote. That’s a lot of votes.
Lumping in a potential constituency with your opponent is a loser’s game. It just turns away and demoralizes potential allies.
Because of the electoral college unless you are in a battleground state. It doesn’t matter if you vote on the Presidential election. If I lived in Mississippi would it really make a difference if I voted Democratic for President? We have seen twice in my lifetime where the popular vote was different than who got elected.
You could say the same for the heavily gerrymandered house districts.
An ally in Forsyth county or Mississippi doesn’t help.
So because those voters won’t be able to help you, even though they want to, you feel justified in lumping them in with your opponents or pretending they don’t exist? Aren’t their lives hard enough as it is? Don’t you think they could help in other ways, like fundraising or volunteering?
It’s a mistake, in my opinion, just as it’s a mistake to ignore that non-swing states can and have flipped unexpectedly.
Which states that are red and not battleground states have the chance of flipping? I see Texas and maybe Florida. If you get a good candidate. Not a Kamala or Bernie type a middle of the road slightly left White guy (said as a Black guy).
If you voluntarily choose to live at such low densities that the cost of fire protection per person is too high to pay, I struggle to understand why that is a public or government problem. Either accept that you’re preferred density is difficult and uneconomical to service and you’ll have to pay a lot in tax or private fees or whatever, or go without.
On the other hand, if you involuntarily live at low densities because of gatekeepers in the city who have prevented housing from being built for the last dozen decades or so, then we should fix that so that anyone who wants to live in a city with excellent and cheap fire protection can do so.
Importantly, neither of these have anything to do with capitalism or private equity.
Who needs farmers anyway? Alternatively, they could all move to the big city and farm there.
My issue is not that rural America is poor. My issue is that there vote for politicians whose explicit goal is not to help them. But that’s okay as long as the politicians “fight the woke”.
I agree with your broader political point re: voting preference. I also don't understand why this is a thing.
Re: farmers - are farms themselves a big farm risk? I can imagine farm workers living in nearby towns requiring fire service, but not the farms themselves or farm owners. I can see the case for public funding of fire service for such towns, but density still matters - if 1000 farm workers each live on their own acre (~42,000 sqft), it's going to cost more to provide fire service than they live on a 1,000 sqft lot, or in a 1,000 sqft apartment in a 4 storey building. Most of North American land use will require them to live much less densely than they might have otherwise, driving up the cost of infra & fire service.
Farms usually have large quantities of dry and flammable goods, whether it’s fertilizer, fuel, hay, straw litter, or dried harvested crops. Fields of dry corn or wheat could be flammable as well. Rural forests can also have wildfires which quickly get out of control and require massive intervention, so it’s better to put them out early.
These places use volunteers because fire is rare, but they still need some kind of fire service just in case. They often get their expensive equipment from grants, it’s the labor that’s provided by the community.
Somewhat related is noether's theorem (from Emmy Noether) that draws direct correspondence between symmetries and conserved quantities. E.g. conservation of linear momentum corresponds to a system that is invariant to translations. So you can find some of the fundamentals of a system by looking at symmetries and Lie groups/algebras give you tools to look at symmetries.
Then again PDF also technically supports embedded audio, video, 3D graphics, and arbitrary Javascript. If Flash hadn't died it would probably still support that too. It's a clown car format where everyone besides Adobe just tacitly agrees to ignore huge chunks of the spec.
Probably, multiple resolutions of the same thing. E.g. a lower res image of the entire scene and then higher resolution versions of sections. As you zoom in, the higher resolution versions get used so that you can see more detail while limiting memory consumption.
This really depends on your relationship with the other person and your status (e.g. US citizen, permanent resident, etc). Long story short, if you are the spouse or immediate family of an US citizen, there isn't any queue to get permanent resident status aside from whatever time it takes the US government to process the various forms. That time can be substantial, e.g. 2-3 years but it's nothing like the multi-year wait that a spouse of a permanent resident needs to go through just to apply for permanent resident status.
reply