Thank goodness we have Trump-appointed judges helping rid us of the deep state!

corrupt decision times 1000 = legitimacy

you really need a time out. We all know how brainwashed you are, but you're reaching illiterate levels of stupid.

It said previous governments did not follow their own rules. Separately, SCOTUS has said that the current executive doesn't have to follow rules at all.

Curiously, did this violation of rules occur before or after Biden had absolutely immunity? If after, then all that's needed is a claim that Biden ordered it, a claim by the current executive LOL.

Not that government, not those rules. This government has to follow nothing. SCOTUS said so.

The President is no longer bound by law so stopping this "tactic" is moot. The door is now wide open. The effect of this decision is merely to reverse a Biden-era action, it does not affect the executive branch now, they operate outside law.

'And lets not forget: this rule would affect more companies than just those that are "effectively stealing from people by making it impossible to cancel."'

Sure, to the benefit of consumers. Can't have that.

It seems pretty straightforward that for the military they'd need intimate knowledge on how their gear works, not just so it can be repaired but to assure there's nothing in the system that could compromise security. That might not be much of a big deal on a kitchen oven, something that contracts with the military prohibited being repaired by military personnel, as that would be more of an inconvenience than something that could threaten lives. In the case of drone aircraft the loss of function because of some failure that could be easily fixed in the field that can mean no drones in the air for spotting artillery or such and leave people in danger when that didn't need to happen.

I expected the USDOD to win this fight as the USDOD has the ability to demand right-to-repair in any contract for purchase. Either play by their rules or there's no money from Uncle Sam's deep pockets.

My hope is that this trickles down to the civilian market. Increasingly the USDOD is looking to use commercial-of-the-shelf gear when possible as that means being able to dip into economy of scale with a combined military and civilian market. I recall something about how the HMMWV (or humvee) is likely to be replaced, at least in part, by a vehicle with 90% common parts with a Chevy truck. If true then that could mean civilian trucks "inherit" this right-to-repair from the USDOD. There's some assumptions built into that, which means it might not follow that the civilian market gains immediate right-to-repair but its not too much of a reach, or is it?

I expected the USDOD to put an end to this practice of reliance on civilian repairs at some point. That would not likely last should any "real" combat break out. Looking into World War Part Two, perhaps the first truly industrialized war, the US military dual sourced nearly everything. That meant no single manufacturer had a monopoly on parts, specs, or such to lock the military out of getting anything needed for repairs. I'm seeing too many parallels today in what lead up to WW2 for my comfort, and that could be why the USDOD is making a larger deal on this now than in the past.

The United Nations is a largely worthless organization. They do some good things like setting standards for telephones, mail, passports, and so on but that's pretty basic stuff that's difficult to screw up. When it comes to anything with the slightest of controversy things can go off the rails quickly because tiny little dictatorships have an equal vote among nations that have some semblance of freedoms and economic influence.

The UN should perhaps have a bicameral system like the US Congress, one house has votes based on population, another house based on one vote (or two votes) per member state/nation/whatever. This means tiny little dictatorships can't team up on nations with the wealth and population to actually do anything to hold things up, place demands on these nations for a redistribution of wealth, put in rules that violate basic human rights, or whatever other bullshit that comes out of the UN.

The UN has very little real authority, which is perhaps a good thing given how it is being run. If it weren't for the USA providing a safe haven to meet, and providing most of its funding, the UN would likely collapse. I believe the USA should put more distance between itself and the UN. Perhaps starting with moving the headquarters to another nation. I propose Iceland as they don't have a standing military to threaten any other UN member state, is certainly one of the most peaceful and stable nations in the world, and by being partially inside the Arctic Circle the UN can track global warming by looking out the window to monitor polar ice, polar bear populations, and more.

Maybe put the UN headquarters someplace in the Middle East, like Cairo, as that would put it close to the middle of all inhabited land on the planet.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7...

Or maybe Istanbul.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7...

Aktobe, Kazakhstan? That's the antipodal point from "Point Nemo", where Point Nemo is considered the furthest from any inhabited land which should make Aktobe the closest to all inhabited land, right?
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7...

Ah, here's a good spot in the middle of everything, Jerusalem.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7...

I suggest putting the UN headquarters in Jerusalem. That's some place we can create some neutral territory, right?

I'm only half joking on suggesting Jerusalem as neutral ground for the United Nations. Maybe if there's some "skin in the game" with diplomats from all over the world in Jerusalem then we might see more nations with interest in ending a lot of the bullshit in the region. If there's a potential for UN headquarters to be bombed by combatants in civilian clothes then maybe the varied nations would take interest in securing the area than let them keep fighting with little consequences from nations outside the immediate region.

Jerusalem might be a good place to track global warming too. If the heat gets to people while visiting then perhaps there would be more diplomats interested in doing something about it.

As I recall from modern history classes at university, and some reading on my own time, there was Thatcher in UK and Reagan in the USA trying to reduce the influence of the "fossil fuel giants" by increasing the use of nuclear power as an alternative. They had very limited success in that, mostly they just kept the nuclear power industry from going backwards.

As this was not only a time of fossil fuel interests having increasing influence on American and British economies but also the Cold War there was a call for a "nuclear navy" to improve the capability and reach of naval forces while removing the problems of sourcing fuel from not-so-friendly nations. This also had limited success. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Since the 1980s, when Reagan and Thatcher had influence on global politics, we've seen the USA and UK improve their capability to obtain fossil fuels. This has gone far enough that the need for a "nuclear navy" has diminished, but I believe it will come back. This need for a nuclear powered navy will be such that I expect civilian ships to be nuclear powered soon. I'm not alone in this: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carriermanagement.... There's likely better sources but I'd thought I should link to something to back up the claim that there's talk of nuclear powered civilian ships.

If the problem is fossil fuels then we need to consider what makes a viable alternative. If nuclear power is beyond consideration for whatever reason then don't be surprised if fossil fuels remain dominant, that's putting fear of nuclear power above fear of fossil fuels. If fear of nuclear power overrides fear of fossil fuels then just how bad can fossil fuels be?

There is no perfect solution to be had. We can only choose the least bad option. In addition to renewable energy we will need nuclear fission. If nuclear fission is considered not an option then expect people to choose fossil fuels to protect them from a cold dunkelflaute.

Look closely at the "green energy" being added to the grid. Do you notice anything? I did. The "green energy" projects are dominated by onshore wind. Onshore wind is affordable, cheap and easy to deploy, with minimal permitting and such to hold up construction, and cheap land in tornado alley... um, I mean "the wind corridor", to erect the windmills.

Red states are largely also rural states, and windmills tend to "play nice" with ranching and farming as the pylons can be along fence lines or something so they don't disturb the planting and harvesting of crops too much. I'll see the proponents of solar PV make big claims of "agro-voltaics" where solar PV shares land with crops or grazing animals but nothing of how much this actually costs, the profits produced, or much of anything about economics. There's a lot of experimentation being funded by universities or some such but I'm not seeing the numbers released publicly yet. If it works so well then I'd expect the numbers to be shown proudly.

There's no roadblocks that I can see for onshore wind as that is largely on private land, needs no subsidies to be profitable, and so is fairly unencumbered by any government regulation. Rural electrical co-ops appear to be supportive of wind power as that is electricity they can produce by the same people that have part ownership on the grid, and can be sold to some larger grid nearby (such as a city or state operated grid) at a profit. Winds are typically strongest at dusk and dawn when electricity demand is also highest. This is different than solar where output is highest during the lunchtime dip in electricity demand, and often completely gone by the evening peak in demand.

Grid tied storage can time shift the supply to better match demand but that means more costs on top of already expensive solar PV. Once there is grid tied storage then any electricity supply can charge up the batteries for morning and evening peak demand, including slow to react steam plants getting heat from coal, natural gas, or nuclear fission. Solar doesn't add value to the grid like windmills, hydro, or geothermal. Hydro and geothermal are very dependent on favorable geography to be viable, but a windmill can be put almost anywhere so wind is the predominate source of "green energy" today.

I have a guess on why Arizona might be hesitant to be supportive of solar PV. I don't recall when exactly but it was fairly recent that there was a ballot initiative in Arizona to pas some law that would call for more solar+storage on the grid. The law was worded poorly and so the opposition used that to change the summary of the law on that ballot.

The original summary of the law was something like, "To support the addition of solar power to the electrical grid." That sounds great, right? So what was the change demanded to appear on the ballot? The change forced by the courts to be included? The words, ".... regardless of cost to the consumer." That killed the bill. Was the change to the summary misleading in any way? No, it was very much the truth as the bill required more solar power to the grid and lacked any "off ramp" if that drove up electricity rates for people living in Arizona.

I'm going from memory here so sue me if my paraphrasing isn't completely accurate, it's close enough to make the point. There was a state law on the ballot that would have been a blank check for solar power providers to charge what they liked, because the utilities would have been required to buy some percentage of their electricity from solar power providers regardless of the fees they charged. I don't recall the enforcement mechanism, and perhaps there was none as it appeared the people writing the law were so sloppy that they didn't consider what this requirement could mean for electricity rates.

I don't see this as actively hindering solar PV, but cost is a very pragmatic reason to be reluctant to be supportive. California has been quite supportive of solar power and this has been creating new problems for the utilities, the biggest being the "duck curve" on electricity demand. The utilities don't have control on solar output like they do other electricity production so to them it looks like a "negative load" on the grid. The utilities don't have controls on load, except with time-of-day pricing on large consumers and such, so to them solar PV shows on the "load" side of their electricity production equation but with a negative sign. Adding storage to the grid could help but that costs money, and is a net loss as there's no getting back out all the electricity put in.

Another solution to the "duck curve" is not have so much solar PV on the grid that noontime solar is dominating the electricity production. There can be too much of a good thing.

It's number 2 since Vogtle brought it's 4th reactor unit online last year. It's number 3 of all power plants in the USA with Grand Coulee hydro being number 1.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

As long as I can recall there's always been some rumors of expanding the capacity of Palo Verde. Maybe with a new POTUS and Energy Secretary that isn't afraid of new nuclear power, and a Senate with a VPOTUS tiebreaker in favor of nuclear power, we might actually see that happen.

The issues that held back nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s was a flood of cheap fossil fuels, and a fear of nuclear power from Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome in theaters. That's largely gone now. The Baby Boomers that are old enough to remember those events firsthand are losing their influence on government policy. With fear of global warming being ratcheted up every election it is becoming more and more difficult to justify not using nuclear power to provide low CO2, reliable, safe, and affordable electricity.