Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.
It didn't take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.
It was a poor design decision
One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.
Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.
VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term
Republican voters are never going to change their preference to a democratic candidate based on who the Democratic candidate is. The people who have potential to vote for Democrats aren't undecided in who they prefer, they're undecided if they even care enough to vote at all. Getting more people motivated to vote who didn't vote in the prior election is the only way to gain votes. That's true for any Democratic or Republican candidate for president. Presidential candidates need to make sure that people who voted in the last election for their party's candidate don't become disinterested in voting in the current election.
The tough on crime reputation Harris has may demotivate otherwise likely voters for a Democratic candidate.
I hope she motivates people to vote for her.
Let's not forget that Bernie was a wealthy, criminal businessman from Manhattan in that movie.
This argument from authority really falls flat when looking at the proposals put forth. Perhaps these are not the best minds despite the efforts of the admissions department.
I'm skeptical of the idea that student protesters typically identify the optimal solution to the problems they identify.
They may be correct in identifying and calling attention to issues, but many of the solutions I've seen proposed by protesters at colleges seem at best tangential to addressing the issues.
If the only goal is to reduce emissions, your concerns of the production and use of more EVs should absolutely be taken into account. However, I don't think that should be the only concern when thinking about the ethics of the proposed policy.
If that's all one wants to consider when evaluating the ethics of the policy in question, then it seems like the "correct" policy.
You seem to have presented a non sequitur based argument.
I wasn't making any positive claims. I was clarifying the terms of what one might consider "working". And how we may want to consider how we value people without regard to geopolitical boarders.
You're defining "work" as Chinese manufactured EVs having less market share. But if that means everyone that buys pays more for an EV and fewer EVs are sold, did it result in the most benefit for American citizens? What about the rest of the world's population, in which situation is the net benefit greater?
Imagine a system more concerned about healthcare and not itemization of billable services.