Youre right. He was also previously appointed by Bush. Not exactly a partisan, and the FBI still would gladly have gotten Clinton for this if they’d been aware of his involvement

The big expenses from getting Hepatitis B happen a decade or more from when you get the infection. A different insurer picks up the tab if you decline to cover vaccination.

The FBI had it in for Clinton. They’d have gone after Epstein if they thought it would take Clinton down.

Not really trying anything. Just that whatever kept the FBI from pursuing Epstein, it was something other than a desire to protect Clinton. They had it in for Clinton and would have gone after this if they thought it would take him down.

Funny thing is that no FBI director has been appointed by a Democrat. Not even Clinton had that kind of control of the FBI.

Edit: looks like I was wrong about appointments; Clinton did appoint an FBI director who had previously been appointed by Bush to another position. He still didn’t have the kind of power over the FBI that would have let him quash an investigation like this

The economy-as-total-spending model definitely has its limitations, and solving those distributional issues is a way to increase public well-being without increasing total consumption

The strategy of seeking out people at the margins, and then entrapping them, is one that’s long been used to collect scalps for the FBI

They don’t actually. You’re confusing SO₂, for which those are major emitters, with CO₂, for which they are a smaller fraction.

Chart from here

So good, even the star drinks it!

The NYT will never say that unless he’s actually convicted.

You mean it’s supposed to snow in Norway in the winter? Nah. Don’t say anything about why though.

Per the article:

The jury, a panel of seven men and five women, was chosen from a pool of Wisconsin residents from 12 counties. They deliberated for six hours.

Web.archive.org only captures the first paragraph or two of Washington Post articles. You’re missing most of the content if you depend on them.

That’s why I included the above two ways to access the full article:

• gift link — registration required
• archive.today

Yes. By a lot. In almost all applications.

The problem is that the fossil fuels industry holds a lot of political power and uses it to block shifting off fossil fuels

Its a lot cheaper and broader to avoid burning fossil fuels in the first place.

How about total cost of all goods and services. Pretty standard GDP way.

From what I can tell, datacenters are choosing the expensive things like small-scale gas turbines, a large chunk of the time. Its utter insanity

Both. Theyre using tariffs to limit imports, took away tax credits, and are limiting the ability to build transmission and use public land

If this was the only limit (its not), and you were willing to dump large parts of economic output into something which isnt turning a profit. Those are really big issues

I think they’re trying to market Yaupon, which at least has caffeine