Zero chance of that happening unfortunately. The current Supreme Court would consider restrictions on corporate media ownership a violation of the first amendment, much like restrictions against unlimited campaign donations and restrictions on discriminating against non-Christians.
Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide as raw material is literally instantly available and the resulting "composite" is lightweight. This is not to say nature always considers recycling beforehand. Nature needed to invent fungi to break up this carbon dump. Carbon era is named thanks to this fact. And it's tempting to think nature "came up" with humankind to make the humongous carbon dump of the carbon era useful once again.
Really, you have causation backward. Eg. the supposed Carboniferous Period was an opportunity for something to evolve which consumes wood. Many "problems" get solved by accident in this way, but many also don't - as long as they take place over a long enough timespan. If they happen too quickly, there's not enough time for living things to adapt.
Currently there is an opportunity for an industrious plastic-eating microbe to hitch a ride in every gut on the planet, deciding the winners and losers of the plastiferous period. All that means, though, is that there's a chance such a creature could appear and take advantage, not that it will happen. (Yes I know plastic-eaters have been discovered, but I'm not aware of any having an effect on the fitness of other creatures.)
>but it would be interesting to ponder how they would have evolved on a metal planet
It overlaps a whole lot with the concept of a dyson trees, but the core problem is that it needs to be able to use the metal in the first place - earth is a metal planet, in the sense that ~10% of the planet is iron, and yet our trees are not steel.
I don't really think that's a fair assessment, since most of it is in the core. That's some very long and heat resistant roots.
I also can't help but wonder, could trees even use iron if it was plentiful in the upper crust? You need a lot of energy to separate iron oxide into elemental iron. Betting against what evolution can make is usually a bad idea, but that would be a neat trick.
Marbury itself has no basis in the constitution. Congress can gut the powers the courts have carved out any time, what I’m suggesting is that it can be done with a surgical strike rather than going nuclear.
Ironically Marbury was about Congress gutting the courts. Jefferson's Congress canceled 18 federal courts, leaving 18 judges (appointed by Adams at the end of his term, and who had not yet been seated) with no court to sit in! The case was a suit to force Jefferson's Secretary of State (Madison!) to give those new judges their commission. Marbury is a fairly complex case.
Anyways, Adams' 18 judges were not sat. This could happen again: just close out a bunch of judges' courts -- they'll still be judges for life, but judges without a court.
This court has gone a long way to say that vibes aren’t a sufficient level of clarity anymore, so it’s only fair that this can work against the court’s allocation of power as much as it has worked for it.
Exactly. The attack vector that matters in practice is having an internet connection and a bunch of unnecessary built-in spy devices and protecting against that is as easy as not having them and allowing people to make their own choices from different vendors about what will be most secure if they do want them (it's easier to replace a Roku or whatever than an entire TV if it stops getting security updates or is found to have a bad privacy record or whatever).
I'm guessing it's more difficult to contract a respiratory illness if your lungs are already damaged, malfunctioning, and covered in tar.
Plus, smokers are not exactly the pinnacle of health. They would be less likely to voluntarily test for COVID and would be less concerned with coughing and wheezing, since those are more normal occurrences.
Smokers are also more likely to be in the same political mindset as people who would ignore or lie about positive test results, intentionally do a bad job of testing, etc.
I think it's because friendship-level connections are a lot easier to make when you are in uncomfortably close physical proximity with each other and/or when you need to rely on others and they need to rely on you.
In upper middle class society, more and more people live alone and have access to everything they need without needing to rely on neighbors.
Having 24/7 access to the Internet and communication tools gives the sensation that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal, but in reality those tools do nothing and you're just sitting at home by yourself, ignoring the people who are physically around you.
This is only true in an environment where nobody from any company travels.
However in a world where one company travels for conferences, lunches, in-person events, then that company will clearly have an advantage over the company that did none of those things.
True, but visits to far away intra-company campuses I suspect to be highly curtailed across the board when remote communications has been shown to work well.
They work when everybody is on the same page. Once things return to normal, it causes a prisoners dilemma. If a company is too cheap to send somebody to speak to you face to face, what else are they going to cheap out on?
