• 1 Post
  • 46 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • I agree with you and I think she was taken somewhat out of context, though it’s not exactly fake or making things up either. My interpretation is that she is agreeing with specific parts of Sec. Burgum’s statements. The headline of the article (calls Trump admin’s climate denialism “fantastic”) is sensationalization. They do link to the source video though and to Google’s whitepaper.

    Her remarks are at around 9hr 5m. She says “fantastic” and then talks specifically about nuclear, grid permitting & modernization. She focuses on the “AI arms race” and the need to act quickly on energy policy. She does not make any statement on Burgum’s climate denialism.

    Most of what she is saying is in line with what’s in the whitepaper (of which she is an author). And in my view, the whitepaper outlines an energy policy that both achievable in the current administration and reduces emissions. It is certainly not perfect, and I wish the conversation was different, but there’s some good stuff in there.

    I have been a volunteer advocating for climate policies at the federal level for the past few years, and we have had a lot of conversations around nuclear, geothermal, clean energy tax credits, permitting reform (NEPA exemptions, transmission). I was happy to see mention of the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 in Google’s whitepaper – we lobbied pretty hard for that. It definitely would have reduced emissions.

    I don’t personally like that Google is advocating for natural gas, even if they talk about carbon sequestration and satellite based emissions monitoring in the same breath. Natural gas is definitely part of the current state of climate / energy policy conversation, and we’d rather have natural gas than coal. In my advocacy work, I don’t demonize natural gas, but I try to shift towards talking more about geothermal and nuclear to cover base load power needs.

    Burgum’s comments are around 47m and there is definitely a lot of denialism in there. But he also talks about decarbonization, sequestration, cleaner sources of base load power (hydro). A few years ago, Republicans were not using any of this sort of language, and we’ve been part of helping to change that. Our strategy has included a strong focus on common ground around energy, and side-stepping the climate change debate entirely.

    If the end result is a reduction in emissions then personally I don’t really care as much about ideological purity. The article to me seems more focused on purity and less on the full context.


  • That is so cool!! I am a home barista and recently started learning latte art. I really love the tulip stacks as well. A few weeks ago I couldn’t even do a heart, but I bought some cheapo beans and milk from Costco and spent a bunch of evenings spending time just practicing. Now I can do a bunch of stacks.










  • Dempf@lemmy.ziptoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    DV is difficult to get working properly on PC, and last time I tried to set up an HTPC I ran into tons of remote control issues and it wasn’t simple enough that I could just hand the remote over to a guest (or my spouse).

    2019 Shield has plenty of issues sure, but it still seems like the best option for me, personally.

    Agree about disable network on the TV itself.





  • Dempf@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldReceipt checkers trigger me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    When I use the word “private” I mean that stores, for the most part, are not owned by the government. I am saying that laws related to private property apply in this situation.

    Technically what we are talking about here is a private business open to the public. And we are specifically talking about non government here, since getting trespassed from public property is a bit different in some ways.

    Yes, there are many laws that apply to a private business open to the public (ADA, civil rights, food safety, etc.).

    But the store is still owned by a company or an individual. They have the right to determine who can be on their property and when, within the bounds of any other applicable laws.

    For the most part my response was concerned with legalities, as you seem confident that a store could lose a lawsuit merely for trespassing an individual. It seems you are claiming that a private business does not have the legal right to trespass an individual?

    I’m not questioning your ability to walk past receipt checkers without talking to them. I do the same thing.

    I do not dispute that refusing to talk to the store makes things more difficult if their goal becomes trespassing you from their property. However, the store does not need your name to tell you that you’re not welcome on their property. If you return, you will be in violation of trespass law. The store also does not need your name to call the police and report a crime. In reality, yes, this is unlikely to happen to you, but it has certainly happened.

    I am not attempting to put under scrutiny your ability to file in court the paperwork necessary for a lawsuit in the event that a store trespasses you.

    My question is: what would be the legal basis for such a lawsuit?


  • Dempf@lemmy.ziptoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldReceipt checkers trigger me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    If a private business decides to trespass you for any or no reason, what would be the basis of your lawsuit?

    You are correct that you own the items after you purchase them, and the store has no right to stop you unless they are asserting shopkeeper’s privilege. For that, I believe they would need reasonable articulable suspicion just like any investigatory stop by law enforcement.

    But at the same time, a private business has every right to ask you to leave for any reason at all, as long as they are not discriminating based on a protected class. They can tell you that you’re not welcome back, and if you return then you will almost certainly be breaking your state’s trespass law.

    In reality, I don’t really see any store wanting to start the widespread trespassing of customers who are just walking out of a store with their purchased items (assuming no prior agreement with the store to stop or show receipt). It would be a big customer service risk on behalf of the store. However, it’s also untrue to say that just walking past a receipt checker is completely devoid of the risk of a store banning you.

    To put it another way: you’re at a friend’s house, and he says you must stand on your head and sing the alphabet. You refuse. He has no legal way to compel you to comply. But he can ask you to leave his house and not come back. Your refusal to comply with his ridiculous alphabet related request is perfectly valid, but doing so can also bring some amount of risk that you’re no longer welcome.