Going to these events sounds like too much work. Couldn't AI just give me a summary of the event? It could even play some AI music similar the band that performed.
Are European retail banks going to be allowed to operate in Canada? Are the Canadians going to put quotas and tariffs on European dairy? Does Canada certify Airbus jets?
The iD editor built into the openstreetmap.org site is really easy to use. Sign up. Navigate to where your trails are. At the top left of the page, hit 'Edit'. At the top of the map area, select the Add Feature > 'Line'. Left click on the map to start drawing your line. Press escape on your keyboard to quit drawing. You will be prompted to select a feature type, which you'll probably want a Path or Foot Path (click the 'i' icon next to the feature for more information from the wiki which is very helpful).
Keep in mind no changes are made until you commit them using the 'Save' button at the top right of the map area. You also have 'Undo' available. You can also make changes to your line before saving. Right clicking the line or one of the nodes on the line will give additional options (such as being able to continue drawing your line).
Hit 'Save', add a descriptive Changeset Comment and add your source (usually aerial imagery).
If the trail is tree-covered and not visible on the map, you may have used GPS to record the track. In that case you would want to use something like the JOSM desktop editor that has more capability. It can import GPX files, etc.
Thank you. This seems like a pretty straight-forward clarification of current law. The current thread title (OP said taken from Reuters) saying this side-steps the law seems misleading.
The entire argument rests on a 36-year-old survey form: "DOE Form 860 (1990) defines electric utility to mean 'a corporation, person, agency, authority, or other legal entity or instrumentality that owns and/or operates facilities within the United States for the generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy primarily for use by the public.'"
So the leap is: an old survey form says "sale of electric energy primarily for use by the public," therefore anything not grid-connected isn't a sale to the public.
No assessment of prior practice, history, the plain meaning of the statute, or other statutory exemptions. And there are grid-connected plants serving a single customer so why the distinction?
Why the 1990 form? Congress froze it into the statute so a survey agency couldn't rewrite Clean Air Act coverage by editing a questionnaire. EPA is now exploiting that freeze by treating the form's obsolete boilerplate as substantive law; a taxonomy EIA itself abandoned, since modern EIA-860 covers essentially all generators above 1 MW, grid or not.
It's as if Congress defined citizenship by reference to a 1990 Census form, and the agency decided who's a citizen by parsing the instruction booklet.
100% complete BS. The silver lining is that without Chevron deference, this "interpretation" won't survive litigation, though the memo's "not final agency action" disclaimer means challengers may have to wait for an actual permitting decision to sue.
For sure, an argument can be made that the text of the law could be tightened up. In my opinion, there's nothing in that text that would exclude these generators. In addition the rationale provide for excluding these generators seems... disingenuous at best.
its very much using the letter to violate the spirit - since the pollution is emitted regardless of whether the plant is grid-connected. these datacenter plants don't run as clean or as efficient as proper power plants, but the primary acid rain contributor is no2. how much are we really talking about?
What are you basing your they are not as clean assertion on? It's more likely that data center generation can be run continuously instead of turning on and off according to market prices. Can see the swing in amount of natural gas production during a day, https://www.gridstatus.io/live/ercot
apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory. at some point we do need to actually think about how to effectively manage the country. there should be a back and forth about the appropriate degree of environmental regulation since it is a tradeoff between economic constraint and qualify of life.
I grew up in the 70s, and my father was a Nixon supporting environmental engineer. At the time the amount of nitrogen and sulfur being emitted into the air in the northeast was turning surface water into acid. a ph of 6 was getting quite common, 4 wasn't unusual, and if you were in a bad spot it was approaching 1. Not only would that water not support life, or be unsafe to drink, but it was actually unsafe to touch.
So if we were reasonable people we would look at the economic activity and the upside of burning these gasses, and add up the numbers and based on past experience make a very reasonable estimate of the impact, and make a decision.
but we fired all those people, and we're very much not interested in having this discussion. I fail to see how that's a win for anyone except the polluter.
> apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory.
Labor unions are lobbying for it. Most of the AI leaders vote Democratic. Users of these tools (corporate and consumer) are all over the political spectrum.
Tell us more why you think this is a partisan victory?
No it isn't. Otherwise the entire concept of Original Intent would be dead in the water rather than a cornerstone of how multiple federal judges all the way to the Supreme court rule on cases.
For the longest time 10-bit color was only available on their professional cards. All it took was a driver update to unlock it on their consumer cards.
Hmmm. Aquire all these properties under the guise of reviving things for racing and oopsie it failed what ever shall we do with all these properties now? Oh yeah do what we do best – build data centers.
reply