CarbonIceDragon

I mean, the thing with the environmental impacts of it is that these people already existed, so any increase in climate impact from them is driven not by actual population growth in a global sense, but in people here having a higher quality of life. We need to decouple that from carbon emissions of course, but in the meantime, I dont know that "Some people who were incredibly poor are now a bit less poor" is really the worst reason for an increase in climate impact. 100000 a month is a bit over million people a year, which sounds like a lot, but when the country has over 300 million people, that is in the ballpark of a third of a percent. That doesnt seem like very much to me. It seems silly to say the country is "bursting at the seams" or "we're full" as I sometimes hear people say in the same vein- when we have a lower average population density than the world as a whole. Countries like India and China manage well over 4 times that in a similar amount of space, and if we want to stay globally relevant in the long run in a world where there are countries with over a billion people that are rapidly developing economically, it seems to me that we would benefit from roughly similar numbers. If we can achieve this by allowing the impoverished from elsewhere to come, add the better aspects of their culture to ours like migrant groups have done before, and improve their quality of life while doing so (granted, actually treating immigrants to the standards we treat eachother is something we need to work on), that strikes me as win-win. Yes, population growth poses a strain on things like housing and public services, but we do have enough raw land, and the infrastructure is something that we can build, indeed, building it is itself something that can drive economic growth and job creation.

I mean, I can see it being a logistical problem for the areas directly on the border if people that come in stay there instead of spreading across the country to avoid overtaxing local resources, but on the whole, one would think lots of people coming in would be a good thing. Immigration is what is keeping the country slowly growing instead of being in population decline the way many other countries are these days, and in general, more people does translate to more economic and military power as long as you can maintain the same per-capita economic conditions once they arrive. If anything, we should be trying to attract immigrants in my view

Iirc he thinks Harris will win, but he also thought replacing Biden was a bad idea for the dems before it happened, which given how badly he was polling, makes me somewhat skeptical.

I mean, he might have said it, the man seems mentally scrambled enough that even if he's in Putin's pocket I could see him trying to make threats to him to boost his ego. Now him saying it in a way that would make it seem serious, or actually meaning it, is another matter.

The thing about SpaceX and NASA is that their purposes aren't really the same. NASA does space exploration and science type work to a large extent, which requires them getting their equipment up into space, but since rocket launches themselves are no longer the frontier of space technology, they don't really want to be in charge of launching everything up the that people want launched (which is a lot these days), they want to focus their efforts on pushing the boundary. It would be like trying to solve the problems with Boeing by making the FAA build all the country's planes instead. Not to say that nationalization is necessarily bad, but more that if it were done, it would make more sense to keep SpaceX it's own entity as a state run corporation than to fold it's commercial rocket launching into NASA.

Alternatively, something else I could imagine threatening Musk with, if the government had the stomach for it, would be to seize SpaceX and then make it employee-owned, which avoids changing it's competitiveness in the launch industry (it has become so dominant because, for the moment, it has actually done a pretty good job at reducing launch costs and improving rocket technology, and doing anything too disruptive with it while it remains in that position might disrupt that), but takes away Elon's share of the money and decision making.

Ironically, him actually turning out to be gay and coming out as such might be one of the few things that could stand a chance at getting his core followers to turn on him

yup

For me there is also a tiny sliver that is "I am currently holding it but somehow got distracted to that fact and havent realized it yet

My high school one had this bizarre poster of Darth Vader saying "Your teacher took your cell phone? My teacher took my legs."

Can hardly expect revenues to stay the same after it gets out that safety is that insufficient though, surely an actual economist would have a way to take that into account?

It should be a landslide victory after saying such, but everything I've heard regarding polls on the matter is that doing so wouldn't actually gain her much if any support, and possibly might lose her some. There's a very vocal part (especially on lemmy) of the left that would support her more, but the unfortunate matter with Isreal is that a very large portion of the country is genuinely favorable towards that country even when they're actively destroying a population, dislikes Palestinians enough to believe Isreali propaganda about them being just terrorists, or just doesn't care about what goes on in the rest of the world and would resent the issue being focused upon over domestic matters.

Did the judge actually determine it, or did the judge just relay information given to them by someone else?