You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.

"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.

The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.

You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.

In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change might possibly persuade the current government that absolute authoritatian control is not as popular as Trump thinks.

That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.

It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.

It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding bodies the world over. These should direct funding for grant proposals not on political whim or popularity but on the basis of what is actually needed. Again, though, it does get sabotaged a fair bit.

Exactly how you'd mitigate this is unclear, many governments have - after all - the leading talent in manipulation, corruption, and kickbacks. But presumably, strategies can be devised to weaken political influence.

"everyone that disagrees with me is stupid!" .... actually explains more.

Maybe assume that reasonable people can look at facts and disagree, and that's normal, with out assuming you have a magically-endowed monopoly on truth or morality?

Just saying.

What have the Romans ever done for us? ... He said, posting on a phone or computer invented by the free market, on an Internet developed by the free market, on a free website whose operations are funded by the free market, probably having driven a car invented by the free market earlier this morning, sitting in a room climate controlled by free market developed equipment.
Should I continue or are you so mired in "I hate the free market" double-speak that you are beyond reason?

Fwiw, You know the EPA completely lied about ddt?

Geez if we could only go back to living in caves and 40y life span socialist paradise.

.. it technically IS part of the executive branch.
And it's still funded by fees, not congressional appropriations, yes?
And the commissioners nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, yeah?

So nothing changes.

But please: feel free to resume your fetal position if you like.

"and picks your charging stops", I should have added. On long trips it optimizes to minimize charging time, which typically translates to 2-3 hours of driving, then a 20-minute stop, then 2-3 hours of driving, repeat. The charging stops tend to align pretty well with bio-break needs.

It's really not.

In practice what you do is you use the car's navigation system, and it tells you if you need to charge to get to your destination. About the only manual planning I do on road trips is to think about where we'll be for meals and override the automatic charger selection to pick chargers in those places, and check the icons on the charge station to make sure there's food nearby. This is a minor annoyance, far more than offset by the fact that when I'm not on a road trip I never have to go to gas stations at all, and pay no attention at all to my "fuel" level.

The best numbers I've been able to find put that number at about 25% of car owners. That is a large number of people, but it's not a good reason to hold up the EV transition. Such people will transition last, and only after public charging options are sufficient that they don't need charging at home (and after apartment complexes deploy charging infrastructure so more apartment-dwellers can charge at home).

Also, we need to help people understand all you really need for home charging is a standard 120V outlet from which you can safely run an extension cord to your car. L1 charging will add ~40 miles of range every night, so unless you drive more than ~280 miles per week (14,600 miles per year), L1 is enough. Access to some public charging is also required, to deal with exceptional circumstances, but it can be rare and used only for getting a 15-minute quick charge when the battery is low. L2 is nicer, of course, but it's not the minimum requirement most people think it is. L2 at home enables you to pretty much just forget about charging/fueling ever in your daily life. It's a significant improvement over having to deal with gas stations, so people want it... but it's not a necessity.

We need to avoid all-or-nothing thinking. It will likely be the case for quite some time that people with unusual requirements have to stick with fossil-fuel vehicles. If there are legal electrification requirements they need to have an exception process.

I actually don't think we need legal electrification requirements, myself. If we put a reasonable carbon tax on fossil fuels (calibrated based on our best assessment of the future cost of mitigating the warming that will be caused by burning the fuel) to internalize that externality and if we drop trade barriers that block the purchase of cheap EVs manufactured in China, the transition will happen on its own for purely economic reasons. It'll probably happen even without those steps, but they would make it happen a lot faster.

For that matter, I think we don't even need to impose the carbon taxes and tariffs, just pass them. Phase them in over a decade, so people know they're coming, and people will begin making the change even before they take effect.

Heh. I am, kind of. I'm not only a registered Republican, I'm a precinct officer. I've historically always voted Republican but got active in the party in 2016 to do what I could to undercut Trump and Trumpism. I remain active for that reason. I do not consider myself a Democrat but I have been voting straight-ticket Dem since 2018[*] and will as long as Trumpism controls the GOP, while taking what opportunities I can to argue against Trumpism from the inside of the party. Of course, it's vanishingly unlikely that I'll ever get elected to caucus above the county level, not unless I lie about my positions, which I won't do.

[*] In 2016 I voted for McMullin, on the slender thread of a hope that there would be an EC tie between Clinton and Trump and the GOP-controlled House would look for a third path since the GOP establishment really did not like Trump back then.

Unless the alien comes from a society that is a hive mind or run by a dictator, or unless the alien is stupid, they will realize that building and maintaining coalitions is essential. This is true even with a central committee structure and is absolutely undeniable in a democratic republic.

Somewhat. I think it's reasonable for an employer hiring a person with a degree to assume they come with a significant amount of knowledge in their degree field. But, beyond that, sure. I'm confused as to why you felt the need to post this reply, though, since I never claimed otherwise.

I agree, but I feel like I have to speak up here to defend Governor Cox a bit (I live in Utah). He's actually an intelligent and very reasonable guy, and as close to a thoughtful centrist as has any hope of getting elected to a statewide office in Utah. His position on trans rights just about cost him re-election, even though he really wasn't saying anything other than "Hey, we have to be careful here, these kids are suffering and doing the wrong thing could cause a lot more suicides" (Utah already has among the highest teen suicide rates in the nation, and the US has pretty high rates relative to the world). His "disagree better" campaign, while exactly what we need in this country, IMO, also raised a lot of GOP eyebrows in the state. Which is just stupid, but it is what it is.

Anyway, the point is that he has to pick his battles. He often signs legislation he disagrees with because he knows the GOP-dominated state legislature can and will override him if he vetos, and being overridden is politically costly. And if you think that's a cop-out, you should look at the field of competitors he had in the GOP primary, none of whom could be called thoughtful, reasonable or anything close to centrist.

I'd prefer someone the left of how Cox acts, but he's not only the best we've got, he's the best we're likely to get. And I strongly suspect that Cox would prefer to move significantly leftward (which would still leave him right of center, nationally), but he's an astute politician and politics is the art of the possible.

A few comments, in reverse order.

First, code violations are civil, not criminal, in every jurisdiction I've ever heard of. What state are you in? The only way they become criminal is if you refuse to comply for long enough that a judge finds you in criminal contempt. In this case, I'd be shocked (even assuming shutting off the emergency disconnect would get you a citation, which seems unlikely, see below) that the first ticket would simply be an order to turn it back on. From there if you refused to comply it would escalate to fines, then increasing fines, then a court order to turn it on and pay the fines.

Second, the purpose of codes like this is to make sure that the house is livable. I expect the code (if it actually says a grid connection is required) was written before self-generation was realistically feasible and just wasn't considered. Odds are a house that has plenty of electricity but is technically in violation wouldn't be cited, unless you sold the place and the new owner complained, and even then they'd probably just require you to pay for reconnecting it. Further, I expect that as long as your house is still physically connected, it would be in compliance so if you were cited a judge would throw it out.

Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it, but it's pretty easy to find the laws and codes online. I'm curious enough that if you tell me where you are, I might even look them up for you :-)

That said, there very well might be something the power company can complain about if you try to get service disconnected so you don't have to pay the monthly connection fees. There might be some law giving them the authority to issue citations, essentially for non-compliance with their contracts. In practice, what would probably happen if they have that power and you called to disconnect is that they'd just tell you "no". But I'd really be surprised if they complained as long as you kept the service and paid the basic monthly fees; from their perspective it just looks like you're paying them money for nothing.

Finally, not having an exterior emergency disconnect is a serious code violation from what I can find (NEC 230.85 (that link is from NY, but the code is national)), so you might already have a code violation. I guess it depends when that requirement was added to the code vs when your system was installed, but you said your system was just redone recently?