This is a huge bummer. I wonder if maybe a consortium of some of the biggest library systems in the country could band together and make a platform that they control to use instead. It seems like libby/overdrive is only going to keep getting worse and more predatory.
Something has to be done to regulate these leveraged buyouts too. Providing no real value and then just vandalizing and destroying companies.
They don't need amendments to the constitution to adjust the supreme court, only laws, as long as those laws don't conflict with what is written in the constitution. For instance, the reason we have nine justices and not eight or ten, is because of a law passed by congress. So congress can change that anytime it feels like. The number of justices is not set in the constitution. There's actually very few details about the supreme court in the constitution, so congress has a lot of latitude to regulate and make changes to the supreme court.
One thing that's popular that would likely require a constitutional amendment though is term limits for justices, because the lifetime appointment is a detail specified in the constitution. So basically, congress regulates and sets up the court system through passed laws, most changes to the court system including to the supreme court don't need constitutional ammendments. Alito is talking out of his ass when he says congress can't do this.
Unfortunately Congress's only real recourse if the supreme court declares themself above the law and ignores congress like Alito wants them to, would be for congress to get off its butt and impeach some justices, which seems very unlikely. I would hope Roberts and at least one other would want to avoid a constitutional crisis though that would risk a total collapse of supreme court authority, but I'm not sure. The corruption seems to run deep with a number of them.
From the article
Yeah the article is a little rosy and overstating things by using words like carbon free which obviously isn't the case, but fta:
"Retrofitting a propeller plane with fuel cells and liquid-hydrogen tanks would result in a nearly 90 percent reduction in life-cycle emissions, compared to the original aircraft, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a nonprofit think tank. That’s assuming the hydrogen is made using only renewable electricity —not with fossil fuels, the way the vast majority of hydrogen is produced today."
Battery powered commercial airplanes are a pipe dream right now, batteries are just too heavy for anything practical with flight. Solid state batteries might reduce it some but probably not enough. We'll still need some kind of mass long distance travel in the future. Once they're able to scale up renewable energy sources even more, hydrogen made with those sources could become an important storage medium for getting that energy to power planes or other things where batteries are impractical. So it makes sense to at least be exploring these technologies.
Even for right now natural gas has a higher energy to co2 ratio than other types of fuels, so it's possible there may even be a current efficiency boost, though I don't know that off the top of my head.
If every new technology was attacked saying, well it's not perfect right now so don't even bother trying, we wouldn't have electric cars or all sorts of other innovations. I agree with you on the article though, I hate when they say stuff like "look we have carbon free airplanes now" when obviously we don't.
Understandably people have been pretty aghast that Barr is saying all this stuff while being non committal about whether he would still vote for Trump. I wonder if it's possible he's avoiding saying that publicly for now in case he's called on to testify in the triak. If he's on the record on public TV saying he's voting against trump, possible on the witness stand on cross examination trump's lawyers could try and argue he's partisan and his statements are politically motivated. Or he's a coward I don't know, just a thought.
There's multiple ways, in addition to the ones already listed in the comments look for the three lines icon in the upper right to get your sort options too. This button will be present whetehrr you are in posts or comments.
It even got adapted as a short animated bonus episode to the Sandman TV show.
The headline left out something important from the article and posed a false dichotomy, a minority of harvested crabs are being used to develop medicines, and most of those are released and survive. The vast majority that are killed are being harvested for use as bait in commercial fishing. Seems like that's the obvious thing to cut back on to save the humans, the crabs, and the birds.
Big concern, especially with the case being tried in Florida federal court. This most recent case is filed in DC however, and the vast majority of people who live in DC are not very enamored with trump, to say the least.
As much as I hate meta/Facebook, don't get me wrong, I don't think these laws are right either. I don't think you should have to pay to simply provide a link to another website. This runs antithetical to the whole idea and structure of the internet. If they're taking the article or photos and republishing it on their own website that's different and they obviously should have to pay for that. The linking to news sites is actually good for news sites though and increases profit for publishers by driving traffic to their sites, it doesn't take profit away. The news publishers are free to have a paywall or put advertisements on the page being linked too and get revenue from that. This feels like publishers wanting to eat their cake and keep it too, they want big search engines and social media to link to their articles so the news sites get traffic and revenue from advertisements/subscriptions, and then they also want the search engines who created that traffic in the first place to pay for linking too? I think publishers are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run lobbying for these laws all for a pittance of cash.
This idea could also affect things like lemmy too eventually and make them impossible, if you need to pay to simply provide a link to a news story or other website.
Until recently the US preventative services task force had been recommendeding low dose aspirin to petty much everyone over a certain age for prevention of heart disease and ischemic stroke. They recently ended this catch-all recommendation for everyone above a certain age, but there are many situations in which a low dose aspirin is still going to be helpful for certain people. Low dose aspirin has a low risk of major side effects, but if what it's preventing is also rare then it might not be worth it for everyone. So it's no longer a catch all recommendation above a certain age, the decision needs to be made in conjunction with a patient's doctor based on their particular health situation and risk benefit balance. Age is another thing that may affect this balance, for instance this study was specifically looking at older adults where bleeding events are more common than in younger or middle aged adults, and shouldn't be generalized to all adults.
For secondary prevention (like someone already has evidence of heart disease or a past ischemic stroke), there's volumes of evidence showing it's benefit. Sometimes even two different antiplatelet drugs, like aspirin and clopidogrel, are even used together.
Just to be clear, it's not like a protective order for their person (though Jack Smith and others already have to travel with large security details because of the stochastic terrorism of Trump and most other Republicans), but a protective order of the evidence in the case given through discovery. So before the trial the prosecution has to show the defense all the evidence it has, which is called discovery. The prosecutors here are concerned that Trump is going to leak that info in some way, like witnesses lists, so that his supporters can harass and intimidate witnesses on his behalf. Or maybe even bribe them or something. What the prosecution is seeking is a protective order to prevent trump from releasing publicly any evidence that they obtain through discovery. Normally there wouldn't be anything preventing a defendent from releasing that info, though most sane people wouldn't generally want their incriminating evidence released publicly. If the order is granted and Trump violates it, he could theoretically be held in contempt and go to prison where he no longer can violate the order.