It seems like an unaccounted for confouder that LCD/NCD/MUE denials are the bread and butter of a claims clearinghouse and the claims would not be sent to the payer if they failed those tests. My bias may be showing, but it doesn't seem like they accounted for that at all..
I am also not nearly educated enough, and also following this work very closely. With the strides made in the past several years I'm always surprised I don't see it being discussed more (outside of a niche of academics)
Proponents of electric cars love to talk about daily commutes and charging at home over night and how they never have to "fill up", while either never leaving a 200 mile bubble around their home, or pretending they're okay with paying an extra $1k+ to rent an ICE car for road trips.
As someone who does not have a commute and mainly owns a car for the 600-2000 mile road trips I take _at least_ every ~6 weeks. I'd much prefer a PHEV, which incidentally can drastically increase range while also handling the ~30 mile average daily commute electric-only quite easily.
That's an interesting perspective. So you would say any economic disincentive used against a country is a violation because the population is impacted by the economic pains? Are reparations a violation of the same in your mind?
It seems any/many actions taken against an adversary will have knock-on effects of the population of the adversary, whether financial/economic or militaristic.
Does the focused nature of the sanctions thus far not change your calculus? Or is it SWIFT only that you're referring to? What about: banning private Russian flights from air space throughout Europe; FedEx refusing to make deliveries to Russia; Arming Ukraine to enable a quagmire, costing the Russian government several billions per day to sustain their effort, and harming their economic position; even broad and impactful tariffs could be seen as a Collective Punishment?
I'm having a hard time determining what actions are not a violation of the Collective Punishment ban under your generous interpretation, short of direct military conflict. I don't think incentivizing hot war was the intention of those rules. My understanding was that they are meant to apply to POWs and noncombatants under rule of a warring party.
> It should be on the ground in Ukraine, but it can't because it is spent.
Should it? That's not a foregone conclusion. Your justification for why it "can't" is also quite debatable.
> Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable." Ironically, the "advanced" technology isn't advanced anymore: the weapons are out of date.
How so, can you expand on justification for this line of thinking?
> 50% of the population believe that the election was rigged.
Not true, but I agree with your overall idea about the extreme levels of division.
> how can it keep promises it made to Ukraine?
What promises? If you're referencing denuclearization in the Budapest Memorandum, my understanding that it was not an assurance of protection from third parties, only an assurance of non-aggression from each signatory. Meaning the US made no guarantee to protect Ukraine from Russia if Russia broke the pact, which they have. Do you have any reason for disagreeing with that assessment?
The following is US centric because that is the only resource extraction I'm personally familiar with.
Coal should stay dead. It has no redeeming qualities except that the cost is largely in externalizations.
Oil and LNG output is constrained by price. More and more shuttered/untapped wells will go online as prices rise and they become economically viable. This is already in progress at current prices.
I'm not sure what you meant by pride, but we don't need to drill/frack protected areas because they're cheaper to get resources out of. If protected areas are not what you meant, rest assured that unprotected areas will be "gone all out" on based on the economic calculus of extraction and there are plenty of untapped areas[0].
Price is the better incentive because it's elastic in response to demand like that created by embargoes on Russian resources, and also incentivizes a move away from fossil fuels by nature of its high price. It will be costly to average consumers at an already precarious time, but at least it aligns incentives with a more sustainable future instead of sacrificing unreplaceable ecologies by "going all out" as you describe.
It is so bizarre to me how he consistently and entirely disregards the idea of Ukraine's sovereignty and right to self-determine. Imperialism as inherently justified seems to be a foregone conclusion. If they want to join NATO, or do anything else, Russia does not have the right (not desire) to invade to prevent it, which seems to be his entire thesis. His correlation to a pro Russo-China Canada seems absurd to me because he assumes the US would invade Canada in a similar way but with wide support from The West. I do not agree.
I didn't get the impression that the author believes that Russia had "a right" to invade Ukraine. You're conflating attempts of understanding a behavior with attempts of justifying it. These are two very different things.
I interpret it as eliminating the barrier to entry to those that know how to set up custom equipment. I haven't tried, so I don't know how large that barrier is, but it seems safe to say there's a very low probability a random person could accomplish it now vs when it's default hardware and requires no technical expertise.
As a counter-anecdote, I purchased a Sceptre monitor in the 20"-30" range in 2010 and used it through 2015 when I gave it away. It's still in daily use and working fine for what it is.
