But doesn’t a lot of this come down to “ambiguity” in statutes which can be attributed to lack of technical expertise. In the example of you make is there a difference between:

Congress saying the agency is responsible for ensuring drinking water is safe vs the agency is limiting heavy metals in drinking water? If a statute says the agency is responsible for regulating drinking water safety including, but not limited to, heavy metal levels can they also regulate microplastics?

If ambiguity is at play doesn’t that require congress to provide more technical definition to some degree?

It’s crazy it goes to the courts. In an early published ruling Gorush’s ruling was talking about the compound of laughing gas because he confuse it for an air pollutant…

Interesting, I was going off the NYT summary when the news broke:

Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives. In response to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices sustained a Reagan-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act that loosened regulation of emissions, saying the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron-ruling.html

Can you provide a quote from the article. I don’t see anything factually wrong.

I am hopeful this could pass. Congress knows they are not technical subject matter experts. They don’t like looking like fools when they talk about the Internet being a bunch of tubes. They want to be able to pass legislation and delegate the details to experts, at least to some degree. They don’t want the overhead of that nuance and detail it takes agencies to define. I am surprised the judiciary wants that responsibility…

With agencies Congress has a scapegoat to drag in the muck and make them look good on TV. Without agencies, Congress is responsible for their own laws and being very explicit about some technical details. They look bad if shit breaks now.

I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.

They haven’t. The ruling is only 40 years old from 1984. And it was actually a Reagan era interpretation based on Reagan EPA era. Not sure when the Republicans changed their mind on this though.

Edit: this probably is a trump era, fauci backlash, change. Maybe tea party roots. But this level of anti intellectualism and Republicans getting nominated to dismantle and not govern didn’t exist until probably 2010. Mitt Romney, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield probably all wanted and supported agencies to do their bidding. Mitch used his power to guy like Anit Pai in the FCC which Obama approved…

Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.

Sorry. how does AOC defeating democratic moderate in a primary impact a republican getting elected. I don’t think moderate D’s or voting R on the presidential ballot. A moderate Democrat is still voting democrat.

I hate this divisive bullshit. Democracies require pluralities. You need to be a big tent party to govern.

simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.

Why didn’t local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.

This jezebel garbage is pretty rage baity. The NYT had a much better and informative take: What Jamaal Bowman’s Loss Means for the Left https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/nyregion/jamaal-bowman-squad-left.html

And

Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/nyregion/bowman-latimer-house-new-york.html

On the ground, though, even some of Mr. Bowman’s allies conceded that his campaign was in trouble long before the group got involved, hamstrung by unforced errors, staff churn and strategic missteps.

The biggest took place last fall when Mr. Bowman, in a hurry to get to the Capitol, pulled the fire alarm. He later apologized, but he was charged with a misdemeanor, and the timing, just a week before Oct. 7, could hardly have been worse.

Opposition researchers turned up old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories and publicized video of Mr. Bowman calling reports that Hamas sexually abused Israeli women during its attack “propaganda.” (He later apologized.)

Relatively few Democrats in the area stepped up to defend him. Some explained that in four years in office, the congressman had rarely shown interest in getting to know their communities.

His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.

Also didn’t help being so adamant dismissing claims of all sexual violence on oct 7. He didn’t understand his constituents which changed slightly in redistricting, and for some reason the Bernie and AOC rallies occurred like 10 miles outside of his district which was most at risk for primary. Probably doesn’t help referring to all people with any sympathy towards Israel as being part of a Zionist regime. Probably should have focused more on domestic issues that got him elected instead of focusing heavily on foreign policy that was divisive in his district.

I think any 3rd party that can be used by Russia and China to harm candidates for US office will receive funding, favorable news from state media, etc. from Russia and China whether those 3rd party candidates know it or not.

My company gives up to an extra 2 weeks of PTO based on years of service. Stock Options/RSU have like a 3 to 5 year pay out vesting timeline with a % of it vesting every year. but you get new grants every year. So after you’ve been working for 3 or more years, you basically have a “full” grant value vesting every year. throw in 6 percent 401k match at 100 percent match my on paper below market value salary actually returns a pretty good total comp package. I’m not sure if switching every 2 or 3 years would provide me any significant benefit because of how my long term tenure at the company has paid off with these incentives for staying. I imagine there’s a probably something about jumping around early vs mid vs late career that factors into this equation too.

Idk about it being locked in. I have seen people with Sr and Lead titles interviewing for a lower position these days. Those things don’t always stay with you the rest of your life. But titles are cheap. Salary, bonuses, and stock are money.

For me, I had considered job offers with higher salary. But then when I looked at the salary and reduced PTO I realized my hourly wage didn’t change that much. When I factored in the stock package and downgrade in 401k match these 10%+ percent salary increases put me behind near term (near term being about 3 years until the new company started to vest and become regular earnings).

How does this work out with all in value when it comes to stock options or other vesting based non salary compensation? Aren’t you leaving a lot on the table if you switch every 2 years? Does salary alone make up for that?

Yeah. It took a while to work out the kinks of getting TV dvd seasons in the right order, but watching TV was easier when you didn’t have unlimited options and more or less a pres defined playlist.

Bundling works at scale if you maximize customer pool. I don’t think ESPN cable would be affordable to most people without bundling it into cable packages; their TV is subsidized by every non sports watching household. I wish there was more transparency into the costs to determine if you are coming ahead or behind in the bundling.

But at the end of the day everyone hates paying for multiple streaming apps. To me that means people just want a bundle that magically has everything they want to watch.

Say what you will about streaming, but I think everyone born before 1995 will understand that todays streaming is way way way better than renting and old school cable. In the old days there was no on demand, so you could only watch what was on at the time you wanted to watch it. You literally had to go to to block buster to rent physical media that wasn’t always available for things like new releases. TV shows weren’t easily available by VHS/DVD. So with streaming, it’s basically cheaper than what Cable + Renting movies used to cost, but I can do it without limits of physical media and have access to crazy amounts of back catalog. I purchased Band of Brothers back in the day on DVD box set for like 70 bucks which is 10 1 hour long episodes. For 99 bucks a year I can get all of band of brothers and a lot more content than that. Sure I don’t own it all, but that’s fine for most of my purposes. With streaming, I think we are actually getting a lot more for less in the grand scheme of things. And bundling make it even cheaper.