Only by giving massive amounts of no-strings-attached government money to Smithfield and ConAgra while lightly scolding them about shrinkflation can we address high grocery costs!
Alas, I was so looking forward to hearing them parrot the talking points of acclaimed Leninist... (checks notes) ... JD Vance.
Conservatism is about preserving a historical social order, rather than existing conditions generally. Acknowledging an environmental change and altering the structure of the economy to prevent it threatens the social order that allows oil companies, chemical companies, and auto manufacturers to be some of the wealthiest and politically powerful entities in the world.
Further, in the short term, ignoring climate change preserves the status quo for the wealthy and powerful. In the long term, though, it only really becomes an existential threat to those who are not positioned to profit from it -- look at Nestle attempting to take control of water supplies for an early example of what this might look like. Cataclysm is a life-and-death issue for the masses. For the powerful, it's an opportunity.
Semi-credibly, I'm watching to see if the offensive pivots east to cut off attackers north of Kharkiv, but it seems like they went over the border along ways away from that area if that was their goal.
New Ukrainian strat just dropped: attack everything with a vague phonetic similarity to Will Griggs:
- Kerch Bridge
- Kursk (is)
- (Saint Peters)Burg (is)
- Il'pryskoye? Sure, why not open a front in Kamchatka
The problem is that the private sector faces the same pressures about the appearance of failure. Imagine if Boeing adopted the SpaceX approach now and started blowing up Starliner prototypes on a monthly basis to see what they could learn. How badly would that play in the press? How quickly would their stock price tank? How long would the people responsible for that direction be able to hold on to their jobs before the board forced them out in favor of somebody who'd take them back to the conservative approach?
Heck, even SpaceX got suddenly cagey about their first stage return attempts failing the moment they started offering stakes to outside investors, whereas previously they'd celebrated those attempts that didn't quite work. Look as well at how the press has reacted to Starship's failures, even though the program has been making progress from launch to launch at a much greater pace than Falcon did initially. The fact of the matter is that SpaceX's initial success-though-informative-failure approach only worked because it was bankrolled entirely by one weird dude with cubic dollars to burn and a personal willingness to accept those failures. That's not the case for many others.
NASA in-house projects were historically expensive because they took the approach that they were building single-digit numbers of everything -- very nearly every vehicle was bespoke, essentially -- and because failure was a death sentence politically, they couldn't blow things up and iterate quickly. Everything had to be studied and reviewed and re-reviewed and then non-destructively tested and retested and integration tested and dry rehearsed and wet rehearsed and debriefed and revised and retested and etc. ad infinitum. That's arguably what you want in something like a billion dollar space telescope that you only need one of and has to work right the first time, but the lesson of SpaceX is that as long as you aren't afraid of failure you can start cheap and cheerful, make mistakes, and learn more from those mistakes than you would from packing a dozen layers of bureaucracy into a QC program and have them all spitball hypothetical failure modes for months.
Boeing, ULA and the rest of the old space crew are so used to doing things the old way that they struggle culturally to make the adaptations needed to compete with SpaceX on price, and then in Boeing's case the MBAs also decided that if they stopped doing all that pesky engineering analysis and QA/QC work they could spend all that labor cost on stock buybacks instead.
Another perovskite hype piece. You'll know that they've got something that's commercially viable once they're making these sorts of efficiency claims and not omitting information about cell degradation.
Consider that many of the same people think of Arch as a viable daily driver distro for the everyman. Some folks are more accepting of jank than others.
It's a combination of things -- Trump's agressive, chauvinistic persona maps well onto Latin concepts of machismo, and there's also a surprising strain of pull-the-ladder-up-behind-you thinking amongst established Hispanic families aimed at the current wave of migrants.
Rather, I'd say there are many immigrant groups with culturally conservative values (think Hispanic Catholics, BJP-aligned Indian immigrants, conservative Muslims, etc.) as well as certain more religious and patriarchal Black communities, that have a lot in common with the Republicans on social issues, and might be willing to overlook their racism if they find the Democrats' stance on those issues unacceptable. Think also of expat communities that came to America on the heels of Communist revolutions in their home countries and have a reflexive hatred of even vaguely left-ish politics.
In a sick way, we're lucky that the GOP's embrace of racial hatred pushes as many people away as it does, because if they'd let that go they'd have a much broader base amongst minorities.