this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
429 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The real reason that NOAA exists is to support businesses, like farms for instance. Weather forecasting adds to the bottom line and businesses depend on them.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 50 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Exactly. That's a service that some rich people could be making profit on and here we are just giving it away for the collective good of our society. Won't someone think of (financially screwing over) the farmers?

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the idea behind getting rid of it with Project 2025 is the hard anti-climate change denial stance they want to push. And they think if we can't track the weather somehow nobody will notice that the weather events are increasing in intensity and occurrence rate.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As if corporations greed has one avenue of oppression

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 7 points 1 month ago

The purpose is literally described as both.

It's at the end of the article.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Most farmers are big business. Gone are the days of mom and pop farmers working a small plot. They all got bought out for retirement generations ago.

Is it’s all corporate “farmers” that are your “rich people”.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My understanding is that a lot of the big agribusiness is structured as a monopsony - all the people farming a particular crop have only one big Ag company they all have to sell their produce to and that company sets the price low enough that the farmers doing the actual growing for Big Ag are still getting screwed.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Most ag business, the people working the fields don’t own the land, the corporations do. Most of America’s farmland is owned by corporations and is worked on by employees being paid peanuts. (Frequently, undocumented immigrants whose status is being used to keep them from complaining about the illegally low wages.)

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anyone that tends a farm or ranch needs to know what the weather is like. It doesn't matter who they've sold to.

[–] Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Okay, then get that. Let's say I'm that big business. It means that if I'm doling out weather knowledge for cost so high, then only big business can afford it, mostly because I'm the jackass that bought NOAA & plot too, together. That means that you can't be competitive unless your farming something I don't give a fuck about, today...