pkt_nspktr

In both the House and Senate, Republicans have proposed legislation to close this loophole. It's been Democrat-controlled committees that have prevented these from moving forward. Even Democratic bills have not made it out of committee, despite public pronouncements back in September. This seems like a issue that could get true bi-partisan support, but it will take Democratic leadership to move a bill out of committee at this point in time.

House: H.R.6490 - Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6490), Sponsor: Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4]

Senate: S.3504 - Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/350...) Sponsor: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

Found this Democrat-sponsored bill: H.R.8990 - Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8990...), Sponsor: Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]

EDIT: removed markdown formatting

Not GP, but since you need a bit more context: if someone posted something critical of one's employer on Twitter, Facebook, or used public comment time at city hall, one should expect to no longer be employed. Whatever critical was posted is protected free speech in that the government (local, state, or national) could not punish the speaker. However, the speaker should expect that future employers would be hesitant to hire someone who airs a company's dirty laundry in public.

On the other hand, if someone posted something critical of a government policy (pick your poison), that is also protected free speech, in the United States. In this case, retribution from an employer, the (public) platform where it was posted, and the government should all be prohibited. The speaker should expect that future employers not care about policy preferences, only that the speaker can perform the job for which they are hired.

Data point of n=1: I think this effort by NY is exactly where the experiment of single-payer health care in the United States should occur, as per the 10th Amendment. According to Third Way[1], (which advocates for federal-level universal healthcare), three other states which have tried single-payer health care have ended up discontinuing their programs: Colorado, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Perhaps New York has identified where those states have failed and its proposal will address those shortcomings.

[1] https://www.thirdway.org/report/single-payer-health-care-a-t...

Will four data points work?

N=1, 2008. Russia invades/attacks Georgia[1]. US President: George W. Bush; US Vice President: Dick Cheney.

N=2, 2014. Russia annexes Crimea[2]. US President: Barack Obama; US Vice President: Joe Biden.

N=3, 2017-2021. No invasion of Ukraine. US President: Donald Trump; US Vice President: Mike Pence.

N=4, 2022. Russia invades Ukraine[3]. US President: Joe Biden; US Vice President: Kamala Harris.

Since Russia/Putin has attacked its western neighbors during three of the last four US president's terms, it appears Trump constrained Putin's expansionism, regardless of whether we liked Trump's manner of diplomacy or not. And Biden was in office during the annexation of Crimea, so he can be the "control group" for pre- and post-Trump policies toward Russia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...

-edited for readability.

If that was -more- likely to occur under Trump than Biden, why did it not? Based on actual historical evidence, Putin is more likely to invade Ukraine when Biden is in office (both as VP and POTUS) than when Trump was, regardless of whatever nonsense Trump was tweeting.

Tangential to my original question, but as I was trying to track down the article I remembered, I re-discovered Paul Krugman's Theory of Interstellar Trade[1], written in 1978 which discusses the economics of shipping goods at near-light speed.

[1] http://www.standupeconomist.com/pdf/misc/interstellar.pdf

I recall a blog post or article posted several years ago, somewhere, that discussed the networking consequences of lightspeed being an upper bound for bandwidth. Unfortunately "lightspeed networking" is not a unique search term! Does this ring a bell with anyone and does anyone have a link to that article?

Here's my gedanken experiment (caveat: I'm not an environmental scientist or engineer!): suppose you have a large box (closed system) with a large number of light bulb sockets and an infinite power source. Let a light bulb represent the amount of energy required by a person (i.e. home electricity, gasoline for travel, food for consumption, etc.). As the number of light bulbs increase within the box, the temperature rises. Regardless of other factors (e.g., CO2 emissions, energy sources) the transformation of fuel to energy, and energy to work, is not 100% and so there will always be waste heat produced.

One may use more energy efficient bulbs to maintain (or slightly decrease) the temperature within the box while increasing the number of bulbs. But savings from energy efficiency will be quickly spent as we add additional bulbs to the box.

I'll let the reader (experimenter?) draw her own conclusions about this thought exercise.