China has more. They have enough that this is a drop in the bucket. While they might be as blatant and ineffective as Russia by interfering with an election, they want a low profile and to maximize capture of revenue, so they are more about making money than trying to put feces on the face of the American political process.
You people should pick your battles. It would help if you knew the battlefield first.
Hydrogen has hard risks, and high costs. Density. Corrosion. Tunneling/leaking. A new trillion-dollar distribution infrastructure to replace the fluid-version we use for petrol.
What about methanol? We can convert hydrogen to hydrocarbon. Liquid is dense, much less dangerous, less acidic, less leaky, and our current trillion-dollar infrastructure already uses it as a substantial additive.
Welfare is engineered to fail, and it fails.
You can't build a system by American political committee and expect it to actually work.
There are known good solutions for poverty that work reliably and consistently well. That isn't what the US welfare system is engineered for. It is engineered to put money in the hands of political donors, not resolve poverty.
The solution to resolving poverty, much like the Buffet rule for politicians, would work overnight, but will never be implemented. Buffet says a law that says no standing politician is eligible for re-election in a year when minimum true GDP year-over-year growth for the last 2 years has been below 3% would work. He is right.
A similar law, based on "theory of constraints" and directly extractable from the pages of "the goal" would work for poverty, but has (sadly sadly) the same political palatability as drinking a gallon of raw sewage.
Dang this lost, broken, wrecked political system and the scoundrels who are in power and abuse it.
...how well do we use our freedom to choose the illusions we create? -Timbuk 3
Oscar Wilde says:
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
Does the soul change?
It is a vast organization with vast bureaucratic momentum and organizational inertia. Can leadership change those? Not even a little. Intel can't change. Emerson can't change. And they have huger and more existential force pushing for change against a smaller mass.
Is the soul any different today than yesterday?
Nope.
In ten years you can ask again, and the answer might be maybe.
So the question behind the question is "what is the real soul of the NSA?". Look at their deeds. Words and actions over time tell truth. Look at the trend of their deeds over time.
I disagree. Disney has money, and all politicians spend at least half of their working hours soliciting money in exchange for the promise of writing laws. It will be extended.
The founders idea of patent and copyright as being meant to last as long as a working lifetime (20 years) died a long time ago. This is just one more evidence of the democracy moving to plutocracy.
Let's watch it get renewed. Then, up-vote my comment.
I see these at a cadence that works with price engineering. I don't believe it. I think it is like "ham supply is constrained this easter" and then they mark up the prices and there are the same number of hams. They were engineering the market, not presenting an actual problem.
The important question: How much money was it worth to Comcast?
They have a population of ~136k, comprising 60,503 households. If each currently pays $100/mo for a cable bundle and all abandon them for fiber (a gross over-estimate), that is $72.6 million per year of lost revenue to Comcast.
It is, however, $72.6 million of returned value, or something more than about 10% of the $620M/year total city budget. If my town voted to net-reduce its total burden to me by 10% or so, that would be very appealing. If they only returned half of that, it would still be substantial.
If they dispensed with the "evil" of the regular garbage "fees" and price hikes that modern cable monopolies love, it would be worth 100% of the price.
Wars on poverty often become wars on poor people. I was there when Clinton reduced max coverage to 2 years. It was a sentence of lifetime poverty for people who had no option, and that was strongly enhanced by the "human glue".
The 0.1% unilaterally owns the government. Better than half of all laws are made for them. Where do you think the 0.1% stands on the opioid crisis? It doesn't touch them. It is a poverty-problem, not theirs.