JingJang

AAA has historically opposed pro-bicycle legislation. Their first priority is automobiles.

Geologist by training here and it's been many years but as I recall, subsurface geothermal systems can be quite complex, especially in regional systems like Yellowstone, Iceland, New Zealand etc.

The hope, as I understand it, revolving around geothermal in the United States is tapping into much larger areas, namely the basin and range region, where subsurface temperatures are much higher than other areas. In this area, while there are many natural hot springs, they are remote and less commercial so disruption would have less impact. The benifits could also be fantastic since there is a huge area that has potential. (Most of Nevada and Western Utah). The biggest challenge is the complexity of underground faulting throughout the region. We can understand the general structure (hence the name "Basin and Range"), but the details are a challenge. At each macro fault you have lots of microfaulting and if you are attempting to scale up an energy production facility over an area you risk disrupting the system with each fracked well.

If we can very accurately map the subsurface, it'll go a long way towards making this energy source much more viable. (We've had years to get better at microfracking so getting an accurate map of what's down there is most important)

Thank you for the simplified explanation and for giving me the mental Image of Rudy Giuliani as a minion. (I can even hear him babbling in minionease...)

Thanks.

I was going to say, that it's not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).

I prefer a higher priced vehicle with better gas mileage so I save money over the long term while being slightly easier on the environment.

I went back pretty far and there is definitely a substantial drop.

The people here saying it had zero is very little effect are not correct.

Granted, overall they are fine and in time this will be historic as time matures the stock so in that respect what the majority of people here are saying will be true.

So they are ridiculous when they say, "Go woke go broke". But, the boycott definitely has had an impact to the value of the stock, one that continues today.

(I looked at the stock prior to April when the boycott and the whole "Go woke go broke" catch phrase started gaining traction.).

I'm on your side and went to that link.

Unfortunately, the person you are debating is correct. Anheuser-Busch's stock fell over 20% after the boycott began and while it's come up a little since the initial fall it's still no where near where it was prior to the boycott in April.

That said, that might be the ONLY example of this slogan being accurate (at least right now).

That's because, in their minds they see the judicial system as rigged against him.

(No judges agreed with him that the election was stolen or that he won so "obviously" they're all democrats or whatever else he calles non cult members now)

If anything, they'd point at the judges ruling in Jean Carroll's case as an example or how "broken America is".

Isn't burning dolls while acting out a flag for mental illness(es)?

I mean there's tons of evidence of his mental issues over the years, but this is a new variation.

Interesting timing for this question: My answer is definitely "Yes". I am dealing with this a lot right now in my life.

It's interesting because if you'd have asked me four years ago I'd have said 'no', but a lot has changed and with the changes comes new perspective.

My advice to everyone reading this is to understand that things can change so reading everyone's answers might be very enlightening, someday, if not today.

Fair enough, good reply.

Upvoted :)

(Maybe Lemmy will bring back some good discussions in threads like these...)

I think the public gets fatigued when we hear about the profits these companies make and then we see these comparatively small fines.

If this is how we "steer the vessel of regulation" then I can accept that this is a push in a better direction.

However, I still feel that a fine in the hundreds of millions, ( not bankrupting but a "shot in the leg" versus a "slap on the wrist"), is appropriate for these very large corporations. They already weild so much political and economic power that consequences for things like this should be higher.

In other words, let's encourage them to operate responsibly in the first place.

This isn't a "fine" to Amazon. 25 million dollars is just the cost of business.

Make this 250 or 500 million and then... Maybe.... it's a fine.