> Senate Democrats voted to block a clean federal funding bill (H.R. 5371), leading to a government shutdown that is preventing the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) from serving America’s 36 million small businesses.
> Every day that Senate Democrats continue to oppose a clean funding bill, they are stopping an estimated 320 small businesses from accessing $170 million in SBA-guaranteed funding.
> As a result of the shutdown, we wanted to notify you that many of our services supporting small businesses are currently unavailable. The agency is executing its Lapse Plan and as soon as the shutdown is over, we are prepared to immediately return to the record-breaking services we were providing under the leadership of the Trump Administration.
> If you need disaster assistance, please visit sba.gov/disaster.
Just to add some context to this "clean federal funding": a "clean bill" here means "let things expire". Democrats are fighting for a continuing resolution which extends whatever is about to expire.
In this case, the ACA subsidies would expire if a clean funding bill is passed.
The Democrats already lost the battle on those things (cuts to Medicaid + no extension of Obamacare subsidies) and they were already going to happen because Democrats didn’t (and don’t) have the votes to renew them because they can’t win elections. Now they’re using this opportunity to try to get those things back at gunpoint. It’s not propaganda that the Republicans have offered a CR which changes nothing additional. Once again, Democrats expect to enact their own policy goals with 47 Senate seats and find it doesn’t go so well. Maybe some decade they will go back to trying to convince voters to vote for them instead of just ridiculing everyone outside their echo chamber.
(I’m not a democrat or a republican, I’m not rooting for either one.)
I’m not on Obamacare, so my premiums aren’t going up. Obamacare is also pretty terrible, since those plans always have worse networks than private insurance since those plans have shitty reimbursement rates. Anyone who can avoid Obamacare plans avoids them, and is smart to do so.
One reason I don’t support the DNC is because Obamacare is such a shitty and compromised system, designed to help insurance companies maximize their profits. Since the Democrats can’t convince anyone to vote for them because they are obsessed with draping themselves in the mantles of unpopular culture war issues, they have proven unable to get the kind of power it would take to pass even a public option, let alone an “NHS.”
I don’t support the GOP, of course, because instead of coming up with a better alternative or an overhaul, they just fuck around with it and try to make it worse and more expensive.
>designed to help insurance companies maximize their profits.
What Healthcare plan isn't going to help private insurance benefit? Medicare/caid already puts a trillion dollar in funding it, so this isn't isn't something that can be fully government funded with the US's current debt. They'll have to worn with existing companies on this. It's not an easy problem to solve.
The solution here is to get more progressive people into these seats so they get better deals and control the greed of private Healthcare, not just hold your hands up and say "both sides bad" and do nothing. Doing nothing only forwards the status quo, and the status quo ain't really great right now.
Isn't that a common Dem criticism? That we can't compromise and end up standing for nothing because every possible candidate has some small issue that makes t
>the Democrats can’t convince anyone to vote for them because they are obsessed with draping themselves in the mantles of unpopular culture war issues
You're falling for the right wing spin. We still have Trump complaining about trans athletes as the government is shut down and somehow the democrats are focusing on the culture war? You're conflating internet culture wars with the DC politicians. Only one voter base has pushed this point and it's precisely to distract.
I'm on communities them "unsupportable"? I don't like that either. You don't make solutions without compromise.
like HN precisely to filter out thst bickering and focus on what's actually affecting my life.
Government has traditionally been horrible at establishing culture anyway. They can facilitate it, but it's down to the people to make do with the tools given.
That's precisely what this is, views on welfare are one of the most fundamental ideological differences between "the left" and "the right".
What's messed up is that people who need social welfare and subsidies the most end up voting for conservatism and austerity, so everyone ends up twisting the definitions of "the left" and "the right" to rationalize their own choices.
It's really not, it's a uniquely American problem. You don't have the far right in the UK nor Japan nor India try to argue about increasing Healthcare premiums. It's as foreign idea to them as national id's are for the US.
But yes, I completely agree with your comment otherwise.
After this all blows over, I never want to hear a 1A nor 2A argument from anyone who voted for this ever again. Nor anything about balancing the budget It's clear that they love to be treaded on and welcome it on a red carpet.
I used to also have this view, I changed my mind after realizing that driving a vehicle is one of the more dangerous things you do regularly. In fact, it is a leading cause of mortality for my demographic. Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years. In many newer automobiles, there are DIY ways to remove the 'phone home' capability if you so desire.
> Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years.
That's a valid point. Personally, I'd prefer to take the increased chance of being seriously injured or killed in an accident over being under constant surveillance. But this is a thing reasonable people can and do have different perspectives on.
> I'll take the plastic car that explodes on contact if it saves my life.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm completely on board with this sentiment. I think where you & I diverge in our viewpoints is when it comes to the surveillance.
> Automobile safety has changed significantly in the last 10-20 years.
I think we need to define "safety". Leaking all my private information is a major safety threat. Only cars from the last 8-9 years have this risk (with some exception). So depending on what you think safety is, the most recent cars can be the least safe of them all.
In terms of mechanical safety, I wouldn't want to drive a car from the 50s. But a car from, say, 2005, is perfectly safe mechanically while also having zero data flow risks.
I don't particularly care. I'd rather be at more risk and actually own the vehicle than subject myself to all of this silicon valley nanny-mode nonsense.
Not the Parent Author, but have been driving an EV since 2018:
Superior Qualities (in general):
- Less moving parts (less stuff to break)
- No oil changes
- No gas stops
- Lower center of mass = better stability and crash performance (moose test)etc
- Regenerative braking extends the life of your brake pads
- Lower total cost of ownership for comparable ICE platform
- Nearly 100% torque availability from zero RPM
- Full battery every morning if you remember to plug it in
- Reduced exposure to combustion byproducts
- Financial Subsidies and other Government incentives (HOV Lane access)
- You move the emissions from the consumer to the electricity producer who are more likely to have the funds to actually start working on viable greenhouse gas reduction strategies
Inferior Qualities:
- Heavier
- Take longer to "re-fuel" on road trips
- Regenerative braking and heavier vehicle reduces the life of your tires
- Eventually the HV battery will degrade to the point that it might not be practical for your use case
> Regenerative braking and heavier vehicle reduces the life of your tires
I have never heard that regen breaking reduces the life of your tires (they do reduce brake pad replacements though) - until recently my 5 year old Ford Focus EV @60k miles didn't have to replace any of the stock tires - which is better than I'd have expected for other vehicles.
Some combination of increased weight, increased torque, or removal of the "coasting" state from EV's leads many folks to experience reduced life on their tires compared to ICE platforms. Obviously your experience may differ, but in my experience it is common enough to mention to provide a fair viewpoint.
Can regenerative braking be easily turned off on most EVs? That is the one feature that I absolutely do not want and has kept me away from looking at any EV so far.
Regen braking can be done by being blended in on the brake pedal. This gives a near identical feel as driving a regular car, where it doesn't really start pulling power to the battery until you press the brake pedal. Once it reaches its max draw it starts to bring in the brake pads.
Many EVs make single pedal driving modes optional, with some of them not even really having it as a feature at all. Some just essentially have it like its just a medium level of engine braking but will never come to a complete stop on its own.
Regen braking is a big part of why EVs and hybrids can be as efficient as they are; they capture all that energy that normally bleeds off as heat when you're driving around the city. Since I've established you can still have a normal accelerator/brake feel as a regular car while still having regen, what reasons would you have for not having it?
Also, I'd highly recommend actually giving single pedal driving a decent shake before fully judging it. Its incredibly nice just being able to control my speed with a single pedal instead of having to use two pedals to achieve the same end result. And then when I take my foot off the accelerator, I'm fully stopped without having to hold down a brake. I get many cars have an "auto hold" feature but I've yet to feel one as smooth as cars with good single pedal driving and I just can't seem to trust it in the same way.
I love it, but you can easily turn it off, and should when you are on the freeway (you'll get better mileage coasting). On my EV (BMW i4), it is just a small horizontal motion on the shifter to go between D (no regen) to B (regen). The BMW also has AutoH, but it seems mostly useless in contrast to regen braking.
Is there is a meaningful difference between removal of rainforest for pasture vs animal feed? They both seem to be "in service to animal agriculture" to me at first glance.
Regarding how the body "knows" how to form missing pieces, might be worth checking out Michael Levin's research regarding bio-electricity. Most interesting finding to me is that once modified, the animal bodies continue to produce different parts as if there is some electrical "memory" in the cells.
This is not correct, there are multiple downward facing cameras [a]:
1) Navigation (NAV) Camera. This is a global-shutter, nadir pointed grayscale 640 by 480 pixel sensor (Omnivision
OV7251) mounted to a Sunny optics module. It has a field-of-view (FOV) of 133 deg (horizontal) by 100 deg (vertical) with an average Instantaneous Field-of-view (IFOV) of 3.6 mRad/pixel, and is capable of acquiring images at 10 frames/sec. Visual features are extracted from the images and tracked from frame to frame to provide a velocity estimate.
2) Return-to-Earth (RTE) Camera. This is a rolling shutter, high-resolution 4208 by 3120 pixel sensor (Sony IMX 214) with a Bayer color filter array mated with an O-film optics module. This camera has a FOV of 47 deg (horizontal) by 47 deg (vertical) with an average IFOV of 0.26 mRad/pixel.
One of the stated goals is to use of the drone to scout interesting places for other drones. In theory I guess it could take that decision without sharing the source images, but that seems a bit far fetched. You'd want to study them in ridiculous detail.
