Solar/wind + battery storage can come online a lot faster and cheaper than nuclear.
We should probably increase the construction of nuclear, but it's extremely expensive and takes 5+ years to bring a plant online, even with regulatory fast tracking. Committing to a batch of plants with the same design would help reduce cost, and maybe decrease the avg time to operations, but it would still take a decade for all the plants to come online.
The Heritage Foundation is a think tank, not the RNC. Project 2025 no doubt has plenty of supporters in the RNC thanks to how influential the think tank is, but it's not an official party position. Any left of center think tank could cook up a Project 2028 document and claim it's the DNC's equivalent – it'd have just as much (official) standing as Project 2025.
To be clear, I'm not defending Project 2025, Trump or the RNC. I don't need any convincing that Trump and republicans are following the plan, it's plain to anyway who's passingly familiar with it. What I'm trying to point out is that there's a strange trend for people to place all of the blame for our current state of affairs squarely on democrats and the DNC, ostensibly because of their failure to precisely match the steps of the RNC – steps the RNC didn't even take, in this case.
Project 2025 is not a response plan. It's also not the same as the Republican platform. They publish separate documents. What you are seeing is the overlap between Project 2025 and Agenda 47. There are multiple think tanks for both sides that are not officially party affiliated - Heritage Foundation, Third Way, Center for American Progress, etc.
Most of the actual strategic mechanisms for either side will not be published. Why would you publish your playbook for the other side to anticipate your moves?
What happens is a candidate posts their platform, such as Ageneda 47. Then you can view the published documents from the think tanks on how that might be achieved, such as Project 2025. And yes, oftentimes the people creating or pushing those programs get put in charge of them or advising on them (see Biden pulling someone from the Center for American Progress to be an advisor, etc).
It's the same link as Republican's equivalent. I.e., it doesn't exist. P25 was some extreme right wing crazies that no one really cares about. It would have been a nothingburger if the Dems didn't try (and fail) so hard to associate it with Reps.
I skimmed the Project 2025 doc during the leadup to the election when there was a big hullabaloo about it. Did not read the whole thing as it was incredibly long, but did read some summaries. Maybe 75% of it was utterly boring conservative stuff that some people surely disagree with, but is hardly worth losing sleep over. 25% or so was somewhere in the territory of extreme right wing / borderline insane.
Skimming that website, whoever is maintaining that is being...very generous with themselves about what they mark as "completed", to put it mildly. For example, "Roll back goal of haze reduction (visible air pollution)" is marked as complete, with the source being an EPA article [1] saying "[the EPA] is reconsidering its implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Program", but no indication of what is being reconsidered, or if anything is actually done.
Putting all of that together with the claimed 46% number, I guess you can count me as a fool. But I'm not buying the hysteria here, sorry.
You are a fool because you didn't expend any effort before dismissing.
Yes, on March 12, 2025 the EPA published that press release.
But a non-fool would search the CFR to see if any proposed rules had been published.
Almost exactly one month after that press release the EPA started releasing draft rules revoking the previous administration's rejections of regional haze reduction programs and approving them instead.
Then you have to actually READ what West Virginia's haze reduction plan does: it removes the previous requirements to install additional post-combustion controls on various coal-fired power plants in the state in order to reduce emissions.
The rule was approved last month.
And the same thing is happening in other states.
"We're reconsidering an implementation" is bureaucratese for "that shit's done, yo".
Jesus fucking Christ this country is doomed because it's full of idiots who won't expend any energy whatsoever to figure out what's going on.
Performance is A LOT more than having the ISA. Intel, AMD, ARM, and apple have spent DECADES developing and tuning their micro archetypes to run those instruction sets.
I like the RISC-V project and think they're doing great things for the future of open computing, but if you think we're 2-3 years away from a RISC-V chip that's comporable to the top of the line X86 or ARM chips you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's gonna be 10-20 years before we get to that point.
I do think where gonna see more RISC-V chips in embedded and subcomponent context where the low or non license fees are gonna make it competitive pretty soon.
Hitch hikers is by no means a universal cultural reference, and by the way it is 2025. The movie adaptation came out in 2005, 20 years ago. It's entirely possible for lots of people older than 20 to not get that reference.
So you're saying two different programs implementing two different algorithms perform differently and that lets you draw a conclusion about how the underlying language/compliers/interpreters behave?
I must have been unclear. C is faster. The Python program would be faster if I reimplemented it in C. However, Python makes it so much easier to transform the problem into a linear form that it’s a bigger win to use Python than to continue maintaining the C version.
And that’s my point: raw execution speed is only helpful when you’re executing the right thing. Don’t discount how much easier it can be to implement the right thing in Python.
I don't think the USSR is the best example of a constitution protecting the rights and freedoms of the people.
> Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights
This rings pretty hollow when you look at the history of Russification. And no doubt this clause is in the constitution because of the Russification policies of the Russian Empire, yet that didn't stop the Soviet Union from doing very much the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification
We should probably increase the construction of nuclear, but it's extremely expensive and takes 5+ years to bring a plant online, even with regulatory fast tracking. Committing to a batch of plants with the same design would help reduce cost, and maybe decrease the avg time to operations, but it would still take a decade for all the plants to come online.