7 ms·

I’m amazed that climate.gov hasn’t been taken down yet.

neuroelectron 2y ago
Seems like the DOGE cuts were overhyped after all. Honestly, anything connected to Trump is overhyped. He has a protective aura of noise. You're not going to figure out what's going on by just reading headlines.
- sebmellen 2y ago
  They successfully took down large portions of the CFPB site.
- gortok 2y ago
  The damage is real even if the dollar amount of the cuts is overhyped.
- tdhz77 2y ago
  You offer no evidence, but you have convinced yourself so obviously abstracted from the ground that time will prove you were right. It’s a foolish path and I urge you to listen to what is happening. Within the last week government data is no longer accessible to researchers. Long standing government groups and private that study these areas are locked out. Overhyped? No. Like the manager that cuts the budget, gets the raise and sees the fallout much later. Your foolish comment falls flat Carly in line —- there are consequences and they are deadly. Overhyped? No. To suggest a thing is foolish beyond comprehension, it should ruin careers for such a bodacious and absurd point.
  - neuroelectron 2y ago
    Palantir seems to be chugging along just fine.
    - tdhz77 2y ago
      Pentagon is next.
- stevenbedrick 2y ago
  I’m here to say that the cuts to the NSF, NIH, DoE (both energy and education) and IRS are not overhyped at all; if anything they are badly underhyped. What is overhyped is the actual “savings” that they are producing with all of this.
  - hallway_monitor 2y ago
    What would you cut? I don’t know what I would, but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. I know there’s a lot of hysteria around this, but I’m still at the place where I can be optimistic that the US will come out ahead. At least they’re doing something besides spending more money and acting like everything‘s OK. From a long-term financial stability standpoint it’s really not.
    - p_j_w 2y ago
      > I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
    - righthand 2y ago
      > but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. Do you have proof of this? Otherwise you are spreading propaganda and lies. “We need to cut stuff because the party I support says so” isn’t proof of a financial apocalypse and is only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s the very hysteria lying in which you refer.
      - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
        Do they have proof that 33+ trillion dollars in debt will begin snowballing larger than any country can actually service? Do we need specific evidence about how debt interest works? Sorry for how snarky this sounds but your response sounds like you don’t believe that the interest on over 33 trillion dollars is a big deal (and it’s growing…) Please educate me if that’s not how interest or debt works (again I am dead serious here) but it seems disingenuous to claim that some sort of proof is required to point at the debt and say “Ah that’s not a problem unless you PROVE it’s a problem”
kulahan 2y ago
I honestly figured it’d be one of the first. That being said, France, UK, and USA are all moving towards more nuclear power. It might be at the point where it’s no longer possible to pretend we care about solar/wind, and can no longer realistically ignore climate change. I’ve been saying for years that we’d know when governments were finally getting scared of climate change because we’d see real, very fast moves to install nuclear and, if possible, enhanced geothermal.
- OKRainbowKid 2y ago
  I don't understand why acknowledgment of climate change would lead to nuclear over solar/wind.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    There are no "unsolved problems" for nuclear (because the safe storage of fissile waste for 10k years isn't a problem we need to solve, apparently). By contrast, getting solar+wind fully up and running requires totally solving the storage problem. Plus the libs love it. Hence ... nuclear.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      > because the safe storage of fissile waste for 10k years isn't a problem we need to solve, apparently We never solved it for the other material that we dug up and burned (coal). So coal ends up emitting a ton of radioactive waste because uh when you dig up the ground you also dig up radioactive uranium (there's no 100% pure carbon deposits). It's also only a self-inflicted problem. You can technically re-use the waste until it only needs to be stored for ~300 years before it decays to "normal" levels. The US doesn't allow you to do that though while say France does.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        > We never solved it for the other material that we dug up and burned (coal). Oh yes. Having fucked up this badly with long chain hydrocarbon combustion, lets do it all over again with fission, because ... well, we did it once already, right?

Seems like the DOGE cuts were overhyped after all. Honestly, anything connected to Trump is overhyped. He has a protective aura of noise. You're not going to figure out what's going on by just reading headlines.

sebmellen 2y ago
They successfully took down large portions of the CFPB site.
gortok 2y ago
The damage is real even if the dollar amount of the cuts is overhyped.
tdhz77 2y ago
You offer no evidence, but you have convinced yourself so obviously abstracted from the ground that time will prove you were right. It’s a foolish path and I urge you to listen to what is happening. Within the last week government data is no longer accessible to researchers. Long standing government groups and private that study these areas are locked out. Overhyped? No. Like the manager that cuts the budget, gets the raise and sees the fallout much later. Your foolish comment falls flat Carly in line —- there are consequences and they are deadly. Overhyped? No. To suggest a thing is foolish beyond comprehension, it should ruin careers for such a bodacious and absurd point.
- neuroelectron 2y ago
  Palantir seems to be chugging along just fine.
  - tdhz77 2y ago
    Pentagon is next.
stevenbedrick 2y ago
I’m here to say that the cuts to the NSF, NIH, DoE (both energy and education) and IRS are not overhyped at all; if anything they are badly underhyped. What is overhyped is the actual “savings” that they are producing with all of this.
- hallway_monitor 2y ago
  What would you cut? I don’t know what I would, but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. I know there’s a lot of hysteria around this, but I’m still at the place where I can be optimistic that the US will come out ahead. At least they’re doing something besides spending more money and acting like everything‘s OK. From a long-term financial stability standpoint it’s really not.
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    > I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence.
  - righthand 2y ago
    > but I do know that the United States is heading for a financial apocalypse unless drastic measures are taken now. Do you have proof of this? Otherwise you are spreading propaganda and lies. “We need to cut stuff because the party I support says so” isn’t proof of a financial apocalypse and is only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s the very hysteria lying in which you refer.
    - adamtaylor_13 2y ago
      Do they have proof that 33+ trillion dollars in debt will begin snowballing larger than any country can actually service? Do we need specific evidence about how debt interest works? Sorry for how snarky this sounds but your response sounds like you don’t believe that the interest on over 33 trillion dollars is a big deal (and it’s growing…) Please educate me if that’s not how interest or debt works (again I am dead serious here) but it seems disingenuous to claim that some sort of proof is required to point at the debt and say “Ah that’s not a problem unless you PROVE it’s a problem”

kulahan 2y ago

I honestly figured it’d be one of the first. That being said, France, UK, and USA are all moving towards more nuclear power. It might be at the point where it’s no longer possible to pretend we care about solar/wind, and can no longer realistically ignore climate change. I’ve been saying for years that we’d know when governments were finally getting scared of climate change because we’d see real, very fast moves to install nuclear and, if possible, enhanced geothermal.

OKRainbowKid 2y ago
I don't understand why acknowledgment of climate change would lead to nuclear over solar/wind.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  There are no "unsolved problems" for nuclear (because the safe storage of fissile waste for 10k years isn't a problem we need to solve, apparently). By contrast, getting solar+wind fully up and running requires totally solving the storage problem. Plus the libs love it. Hence ... nuclear.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    > because the safe storage of fissile waste for 10k years isn't a problem we need to solve, apparently We never solved it for the other material that we dug up and burned (coal). So coal ends up emitting a ton of radioactive waste because uh when you dig up the ground you also dig up radioactive uranium (there's no 100% pure carbon deposits). It's also only a self-inflicted problem. You can technically re-use the waste until it only needs to be stored for ~300 years before it decays to "normal" levels. The US doesn't allow you to do that though while say France does.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > We never solved it for the other material that we dug up and burned (coal). Oh yes. Having fucked up this badly with long chain hydrocarbon combustion, lets do it all over again with fission, because ... well, we did it once already, right?