I’m aware. The collateral for the credits are EV sales, hence my shorthand.

You misread the sheet slightly. The total profit for the year was $7.1 billion, of which $2.8 billion was renewable energy credits. I.e. their profit would have only been $4.3 billion.

You are. Without the EV credits, Tesla would have folded years ago.

Are you saying his killing was justified?

We all just learned from Walgreens’ latest report that placing barriers between consumers and the goods they’re trying to purchase reduces sales, and CVS’ response to this problem is to add a login requirement.

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach.

By comparison, North Carolina attempted to implement a voter ID law in 2016 that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court because it deliberately targeted black voters.

No, this article is talking about things like rejecting registration based on minor clerical errors like ink color, rejecting provisional ballots arbitrarily, and restricting the availability of ballot boxes. That sort of thing.

On the voter id question, by the way, the argument isn’t about whether or not you should have ID to vote, it’s about whether you can get ID in the first place.

Most countries in the world either issue IDs to everyone or allow you to prove your identity with things like bank statements and utility bills, or just somebody else who can vouch for you. The problem with US voter ID laws is that they only give you a few options for acceptable documents, and then make it hard to get those documents.

I see why you’re getting at, but I think you’re mistaken.

Rage-bait works by evoking a reaction. It spreads because people become incensed and then feel the need to share the reason for their anger.

This is the opposite of reaction. It is a calm response to the OP explaining why they are reacting to rage-bait and inviting them to reconsider their posting.

Maybe we shouldn’t be letting them off so easy.

This is the tragic truth.

The most frustrating part about it is that withholding votes was framed as a principled position. And I’m sorry, but that’s asinine. How many of those people who declared that they wouldn’t vote for the democratic ticket because of their action/inaction on Gaza actually did anything more than posting rants on social media? How many raised funds for aid? How many organized rallies, protests, or educational outreach? How many even so much as contacted their representatives?

It is either naivety or complacency to believe that national policy should change just because you and your friends sent around some memes. And it is callous indifference to base your vote on a single issue and then claim that you’re inhabiting the moral high ground.

If you yell into the void, you shouldn’t expect a response. And if you believe in an issue, either take action or acknowledge that it would be staggeringly arrogant to expect other people to put in work that you yourself won’t do.

This a good reminder that not voting is also a political position.

I think your math is a little bit off though.

There were ~244 million eligible voters in 2024. 75,017,613 voted for Harris*, which gives us ~169 million that allowed this to happen.

*The only other viable candidate, like it or not.

This is not a free speech issue. The commenter makes a worthwhile point, and your point meanwhile is incorrect. Critique is not the same as reaction.

It’s a tricky to maintain balance between openness to opposing views while avoiding susceptibility to disingenuous “just asking questions” diversion.

It is not the word. Broiling is a cooking technique of using very high direct radiant heat (i.e. cooking below the heat source). In England and Europe it’s often called “grilling”.

Don’t feed the trolls. This is an obvious attempt to divert the conversation.

It took me a second to figure out what you were referring to, but yeah, that’s a case in point.

Yes, and this lawsuit follows a whole series of other actions by the SEC. It may seem like a long time, but due process was followed.

This is absolutely spot on.

I’m definitely not doing that. I’m pointing out that the commenter above is correct and you appear to have a misconception about what non-profit means.

Ok, it’s evident that reading papers of this sort is perhaps new-ish territory for you, but I sincerely commend your curiosity.

To whit: if you read the Results and Discussion section of Banaei, you will find at least 5 inline citations that refer to other papers that have investigated plastic microparticle interaction with intestinal cells going all the way back to 2004, and multiple other papers discussing microparticle interaction with other cell types. What this paper does is absolutely not novel. It isn’t necessarily worthless, but it is very much not new.

Per the methodological issues with Hernandez, there is a formalized process in scientific publishing for ensuring that critical discourse about a paper is presented alongside the original work. If you search for Hernandez (or any other paper) in PubMed and scroll down past the abstract, you’ll find related articles. If there are any formal comments/critiques/corrections, those will be listed first with a different subheading.