I have no idea why people are downvoting it.

What you’re talking about, and what myself and the author are talking about, are clearly not the same thing.

Unless you’re Doctorow, I don’t think you can speak for the author, but you can certainly for yourself.

I looked at your post history and I don’t see anything I’d consider trolling, but your responses her are screaming that in this thread of conversation. I’m just going to chalk this up to us SERIOUSLY not communicating with one another for some unknown reason.

There’s no point in us conversing further on this. I’m making clear my point in multiple ways. You’re still not getting it so lets just end this here.

I hope your other conversation with others are more communicative that this one. Have a great day!

Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.

I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”

I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.

Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”

Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”

Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?

Its the whole point of this point in this thread.

Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject… Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…

I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.

“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”

I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.

No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.

Oh, honey…

Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?

Yep, they turned it on by default. It looks like you have until Nov 27th to turn it off before they share your data.

I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase,

While construction would be huge for emissions, I would guess the most emissions would come from the mining, transport, refinement, and disposal efforts for the fuel on an ongoing basis.

Lots of good conversation occurring in this post, but I wanted to call out a bit of nuance on the study that is being glossed over.

The study author’s argument isn’t against methane or even fracking per se. Its against the extra pollution from EXPORTING methane by ships.

I would paraphrase the study author’s position more clearly as: “A ship full of coal produces less pollution than a ship full of liquid methane because of all the leakage and energy needed to make that ship full of methane then back to burnable natural gas”

While the study author does call out leaks and inefficiencies in the extraction of methane, the numbers at that point don’t make coal more attractive. His contention on that only comes when you have to do all the extra work and energy to make it exportable, then consumable at the other side.

The original study is here in PDF form

There’s still Vivali which is Chromium based and still supporting V2 extension (like uBlock) until June 2025. Its not a full fix, but its a stay of execution. That said, I’m a FF primary user.

“Suspicious were raised early when President Milei departed from his typical Spanish and began speaking not only in perfect English, but with a slight New Hampshire accent. Further concerns were raised at the end of the speech where he told waiting reports to refer any questions to his press secretary CJ Cregg.” /s

Donors would still have to meet the Fedramp compliance standards. So this supports Doctorow’s point.

I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means?

Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.

Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.

Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.

This seems like a big miss that every video game developer could skip the shadows and just say “our game takes place at high noon in Hawaii”.

It’s paying to rebuild infrastructure where the state government has been neglecting.

Besides Texas, none of those states listed are population dense or otherwise rich. In fact the low population density may require the cost per subscriber to be significantly higher because more infrastructure is required to bring service to fewer people. This is a perfect example of good federal government spending.

Is your preference that if these regions can’t afford to build/maintain this infrastructure they should go without?

By removing the LFP model they’ve removed all the complexities of how many speakers are in the vehicle and all the other minor changes that were part of the standard range vehicles.

There is barely any difference between the base model and LR. Besides the battery pack itself, the standard range doesn’t have different parts, it just has fewer of them. Also, Tesla could make the base model a “build to order” vehicle meaning there would be no “stale” inventory.

Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.

Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.

This doesn’t make sense, because if there aren’t enough models being sold, the cost could be immense for the complexities it creates.

The sales for having the “as low as $X” aren’t recognized against that base model, they’re recognized against getting someone to consider buying any Model 3 “because they only cost $X!” Once you have the buyer interested, it isn’t difficult to increase the price the buyer ultimately pays because they buy the more expensive models.

I’m fine with my 8 layers during winter, tyvm.

Not all of us can live in the warm weather winter geographies like you do where you only need 8 layers. /s

The lack of demand makes sense, at least for the US. The 500e gets just 149 miles of range and starts at $34,095.

Tell me you don’t want to sell EVs without telling me you don’t want to sell EVs.

Isn’t it just a matter of cutting off a couple of undersea cables?

North Korea isn’t an island. It shares a land border with Russia and China. My guess is that North Korea’s main telecom connectivity is through China. If China is cutting off North Korean internet, internet access is the least of its worries.

Ugh, and if you don’t mind selling your soul, she might not be wrong. Owens is apparently worth $5m. source Thats more money than I have.