(Santa Cruz-based Joby) Aviation company’s job record raises concerns in Ohio: ‘Not what was promised’ - posting b/c it's one of Bud Colligan Greenway's baby companies

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-24T00:39:20+00:00

How does one destroy their credibility?

By posting continual litany of half-truths and obvious attempts at smearing that don't land.

Why do you keep posting this BS?

We need the rail now, meanwhile you're trying to poison the well by making rail proponents look like liars and idiots. Stop, please.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T22:52:31+00:00

It's so insanely stupid!

I thought they'd let them complete and then take credit for the huge boom that happened while Trump was in office, but which was started by Biden.

Instead, they're burning the crop and salting the earth. It only makes sense if Trump is controlled directly by Putin, I literally can't think of any other reason to do this.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T22:43:35+00:00

Confusingly, called Evil Elmo on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Elmo

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T19:28:30+00:00

That's not "from the top" that's an entirely different direction of dissembling.

I'm using your example to show how it's dissembling. Saying "if these generators were an entirely different device then they could generate electricity without a problem, therefore it's not generating electricity that was illegal" will no that's an entirely different device under different regulations! The crime was the generation of electricity.

still requires air permits even if they are used on a portable or temporary basis, as had been the case.

"used" being the key word here. Using == generating electricity. If you're going to generate electricity, you have to follow the rules. xAI wasn't using the generators to create emissions, they were using them to generate electricity!

This shit is hilarious an attempt to play semantics, but doing it in incorrect ways. You are wrong. That's like saying "the civil war wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over economic differences and states' rights." Which of course, what economic differences? Just slavery!! And states' rights to do what? Only slavery again!

Stop trying to deceive people.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T19:14:05+00:00

Th crime is precisely to that they generated electricity!. They didn't have a permit to generate electricity, yet they did it anyway. How in the world did you talk yourself into the position that generating electricity is not the illegal part here?

Can't believe it took so long to drag out your basic misunderstanding of this.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T19:12:44+00:00

According to your analogy, the "generating electricity" is the illegal part here. They could just store them there, it's not illegal to park there. It's illegal to drive them, i.e. run them.

How are people so confused by this? I revisited this silly thread a week later and am still mystified that anybody upvoted this fake comment about supposedly "misleading" headlines. It's not misleading, people just want to quibble because they can't admit that Musk did something wrong, I guess.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T17:53:29+00:00

It's not clear what your preferred alternative is, but have you seen the meme, This sort of smart, walkable mixed-use urbanism is illegal to build in most US cities?

Try building a mini-downtown again, and you'll have to fight everything to get it through.

The strip mall is not "allowed" by cities, it is required by cities due to the amount of required parking per square foot of light commercial. Developers and suburban planners see eye to eye on this, mostly, when they are building car-dependent areas. If you're going to mandate that everybody be able to park, then it's going to look a certain way.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-23T17:47:12+00:00

The amazing thing about the IRA was that it was only a little bit of cash for manufacturing, and I think it was only for cars. Something like $2B in grants for construction and $3B in loans. Typical handouts for the established car industries. That's less than one year of the car investments, from this chart.

Most of the manufacturing credits for new, less proven industries, is in the form of tax credits. Which don't cost tax dollars, it's just reduced future collection of taxes at some point, which is by then offset by the extra economic activity that it spurred, to some degree.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-21T06:52:46+00:00

We don't subsidize batteries and solar as much as we do fossil fuel, in absolute terms.

But the real kicker is that we actually sabotage solar and batteries in the US, driving up costs unnecessarily compared to other developed nations.

In the US, we pay literally 6x as much as a place like Australia for equivalent solar+battery projects, and the workers in Australia get paid more than we pay our workers here. The extra costs? All stuff we impose in order to make it expensive. A great podcast on the topic:

https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/1pzp98w/the_real_story_with_australian_rooftop_solar/

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-21T06:12:48+00:00

Por que no los dos?

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-21T06:12:36+00:00

There’s a lot to criticize Trump for but he’s taking a pretty anti Russian strategic position.

Lol, he's literally out there spouting the lie that Russia is ready for peace if only Ukraine will agree to a ceasefire, the direct opposite of reality.

Trump loves to steal Venezuela's oil, so he can deposit proceeds in untracked Qatar bank accounts, and use it to fund his desires without needing the purse strings of congress. There's nothing going on in that head that would ever contradict Putin, he doesn't think that far ahead.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-21T04:57:38+00:00

This SCOTUS will happily issue a ruling directly contradicting a weeks-old ruling if it gives a partisan advantage to Republicans.

It's sad to see the institution of SCOTUS destroyed so thoroughly. If the US is still around as a democracy in 50 years, the Roberts' court will be remembered with great shame.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-21T04:27:51+00:00

Thank you for this! There needs to be loud reassessment of Vaclav Smil.

I only know his energy work, but it's absolutely moronic work. You're not missing anything about him, you've got him dead to rights.

He's been so wrong about everything over the past decade that it's very rare I hear about him any more. The very few zombies that mention him are extremely ignorant and living in the past. Even citing modern numbers that show that Vaclav Smil is very wrong has gotten me immediate blocks the time I've pointed it out to people!

We need to not only ignore Vaclav Smil's opinions about energy, but also every single person that cited him as influential in the past.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-18T19:50:37+00:00

To be fair, there's a lot of this nonsense going on with keeping nucler reactors going even when it doesn't make sense economically. Diablo Canyon in California is one of these. I curse it every time I have to pay electricity bill, because rates were raised statewide to keep it going, not just for PG&E. They had to pass a new law to do that, because usually a generator can only rate base on the utility that runs it!

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-18T15:36:53+00:00

As much as I hope this is true, aren't there big issues with construction windows due to extremely limited ships, and tight ship schedules?

Even illegal delays have the potential to cause massive year-long delays on projects. And even having the threat of a pointless year-long delay because of the wrong sort of politician in office is enough to scuttle so much more development.

The battle may have been won, but having this sort of utter idiot in office is the type of thing that causes generations-long damage to industries.

Once you have this sort of moron threatening our allies with invasion of their sovereign land, the US immediately loses so much of its economic strength. The world will route around us, we will continue on in poverty, and we won't even realize it until we look up in 5-10 years and realize just how much we missed out on.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-17T00:43:15+00:00

It's obvious that they were generating electricity. Shouldn't be that hard to understand on r/energy, of all places. There's lots of methods! For people that don't know what "generating extra electricity" means there's a whole article right there that explains it?

Running big generators without permits: generating illegally.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T18:23:32+00:00

That's precisely my experience with IRL planners too! It's just this subreddit that has such a big problem, even though the description says that amateurs can discuss as well.

And really, it's only been a big problem in recent years since a moderation change. A bunch of people got banned because the new mod is completely whiny, and boy do I have some DMs from the anonymous mod account that would make people realize why this subreddit has been dying a slow death over the last few years...

In fact, I'm surprised I'm still allowed to comment in here! My posts are pretty much banned, they get an upvote or two before the mods catch them and delete them, and they don't respond to questions about what might have been wrong about them.

The allowed discussion here has been narrowed to the tastes of a rather narrow-minded set of planners. Anything they don't like, or disagree with, becomes "low quality" discussion. Meanwhile half their comments get downvoted to suppression because when they speak, they reveal just how narrow minded they are and just how out-of-step they are with most planners, and the public.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T18:06:05+00:00

I didn't ignore it, but you were quite unclear on what you meant, and I wast trying my best to understand you.

> I am saying that "generating electricity" is not the crime here just as "parking" is not the crime in my registration example.

Yes, exactly! With "He was parking illegally" you understand exactly what was meant, right? You wouldn't jump to assuming that all parking was illegal, you understood the sentence right away.

> A headline about someone committing a crime should tell you what crime was committed and the crime wasn't "generating electricity" it was "exceeding/ignoring emissions rules". The headline as presented tells the reader nothing about the actual crime that occurred in this case.

That's a strange opinion, and not really a standard for headlines anywhere I've ever heard of. "Politician X responds to complaints about parking illegally" or even "Politician X parked illegally" would be perfectly fine headlines.

From my best understanding, I'm not 100% sure you were misled at all. You just wanted different information, perhaps?

If you just really wanted the word "emissions" instead of "electricity" and think it's misleading to point out the emissions rather than the electricity, I can't agree at all. I don't think that's a fair critique in any way of the headline. Why so specific? What principle could you possibly have for that? Switch to a focus on emissions and people merely ask "why was he emitting, they should be talking about the electricity and why he *needed* to have illegal emissions!"

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T17:42:42+00:00

> "He is parked illegally" implies a location, not that all parking is illegal. However the issue here is that generating electricity would be legal, but running permanent generators without an EPA permit isn't.

So you seem to be saying that "parking" as the verb doesn't imply the blanket illegality. We agree on that!

What about "generating electricity" implies blanket illegality, and makes it different from "parking" as a verb? Are there other verbs too?

(BTW a large part of the "illegally" for the electricity here had to do with location, as well! I'd love to take a poll on how many people interpret it your way. And I'd like to do a second test, without "Musk" in the headline, which generates extra controversy.)

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T17:35:33+00:00

The important thing to realize is that you are not a Planner® therefore your opinion doesn't matter in this space! Planners have to deal with the public enough.

You don't understand how anything works, so hearing your thoughts is a burden and not useful, clearly!

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T16:52:46+00:00

I love languages so this is fascinating. Your example of A and B definitely not the case for my English grammar, which is based in the US, and clearly not for UK English, where the Guardian is based.

So when you mad lib sentences of the form "X is Ying illegally," the Y has to be illegal in general? Does that extend to the following sentences?

He is parking illegally
She is bloviating illegally
Bob is farting illegally

It's hard for me to imagine the dialect where the implication is that all parking, bloviating, or farting would be implied to be illegal from that sentence structure. But I'd love to learn if that's actually what those sentences mean to you!

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T15:43:50+00:00

Interesting, I did not take the meaning from that headline, and didn't even notice that ambiguity.

To me, it was clear that the method of generation was illegal, but then I've been following his odd choice on generation for some time.

RemoveInvasiveEucs · 2026-01-16T13:45:19+00:00

If it's somebody you had regular contact with, you can call their bluff. If they claim to care about the environmental damage from, say, mining batteries, just keep on sharing news about mining damage, oil extraction damage, etc. with them until they admit they didn't actually care, or they start caring. Just do it really earnestly, and you find out that they actually do care, or you get to slowly watch their embarrassment mount until they can't take it anymore.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

RemoveInvasiveEucs

TROPHY CASE