I would say that "Fascist" and even "Nazi "are pretty appropriate words for Genocide deniers.
I'll explain: mass murder of women and children when the victims are white is "Genocide", whilst when the victims are not white it's " collateral damage" whilst "fighting terrorism".
Hope that clears up any confusion.
People can't really receive Empathy since that's an inherent human ability in others. Also Empathy itself is an entirelly emotional thing - it's feeling a reflection of what others are feeling - that involves no reasoning.
At most what can happen is that those who do have more empathy can turn it down a bit for some and leave it at a higher level for others, but those who have less empathy (or none, such as psychopaths) are literally unable to empathise more even if they wanted to.
So I don't think it's Empathy that's the social contract, I think it's more something like Respect For Others' Feelings, as in "I'll respect the fellings of those who themselves respect the feelings of other people", which works even for people who have no empathy because beyond a certain level of feeling even psychopaths can see the external effects of an emotion in others and determine rationally - rather than via empathy - what those feelings are and take them into account, and thus they can refrain from doing things that cause certain feeling in others.
It's a "publicly traded company", not a "public company" - so a company where anybody who has the money to do so can buy shares in it, not a company owned by the state (which can be States, Regions, Municipalities, the Central Government and so on).
Since a "public company" is one oned by the state, in a Democracy that means every citizen owns part of it and all have an equal share of ownership (via their electoral vote they chose directly or indirectly who manages the companies owned by the state), whilst a "publicly traded company" is only owned by some amongst the public (those who bought shares in it, which can only happen if they had the money to do so) and the sizes of each owner's stakes are highly uneven with a few owning far, far, FAR larger fractions of the company than the vast majority (so, not at all a democratic system).
I read the comments here, starting from the perspective that merely being a "conservative" was no reason for defederation (I have a 1990s idea of what the word "conservative" means), then it turns out we're talking about people posting Nazi shit at will and it staying up, which definitelly justifies defederation and the "Nazi bar" label, but apparently (from his own participation here) the Admin of the instance is willing to ban the Nazi types and possibly the groups in that instance which were ok with Nazi posts.
If the admin does this, then I'm against defederation, if not then I'm in favour of defederation. Sadly I can't encode such a view in just a Yay or Nay metric (i.e. upvote/downvote), hence I will neither upvote nor downvote and instead am leaving my rationale here as a post.
That second formula is for how much power gets dissipated in a resistance (hence the R in it) , not how much power travels through a line.
That said the previous poster was indeed incorrect - the required thickness of a cable through which a certain amount of power passes depends only on current, not voltage: make it too thin and it can literally melt with a high enough current and the formula of the power it is dissipating as heat that can cause it to melt is that second formula of yours and the R in that formula is inverselly proportional to the cross-cut area of the cable, which for a round cable is the good old area of a circle formula which depends on the square of the radius - in other words the thicker the cable the less current it can take without heating up too much or, putting it the other way around, the more current you want to safely pass through a cable the thicker it needs to be.
In summary, thinner cables heat up more with higher currents (and if they heat up enough they melt) because even pure copper has some resistance and the thinner the cable the higher the resistance. If you need to move Power, not current specifically (such as to charge something), you can chose more current or to have a higher voltage (because P = V x I), and chosing a higher current means you need thicker cables (because as explained above the cables would overheat and even melt otherwise) but a higher voltage doesn't require a thicker cable.
I've been very purposefully avoiding the US ever since the Patriot Act exactly because it became possible for the TSA to riffle through your electronics (even confiscate them) and do this kind of shit.
Then on top of that festering pit of autocracy which, by the way, nobody reversed in all this time, Trump added the risk of ICE detention and "free trip to El Salvador (to go check a mega prison there)".
"As long as it's the right races doing it, they have our unwavering support"
I'm thinking that maybe it's because, having spent years with a "if you're not with us then you must be with them" bubble, really believing it and actively using that "argument" against others, they suddenly find themselves is disagreement with the old us yet not because they agree with them.
That being so, their "I'm not political" is their way of coping with it.
Of course, as many are pointing out, everything is political, but given that these people for years believed a hyper-tribalist and ultra-simplified "it's either us or them" view of everything the idea that everything is politics might be a bit too far ahead for them who have just discovered the hard way that one can have beliefs about how things should be which are neither us nor them.
And all this is without even taking into account the fall of the Earnings side of the P/E.
If Tesla sales keep falling that "correct" P/E or 10 won't be $19.57, it will be a lower number that keeps on falling along with the fall in sales because less sales means less earnings.
Even better: like all automakers Tesla has a lot of fixed capital costs which can't be easily shrinked (factories, equipment) so the fall in sales might actually push them below profitability since they will only be able to reduce costs in the short and mid term up to a point (it take time to sell a factory and the equipment in it)
If the company becomes unprofitable, it will need money from outside to keep going, and in an environment of quickly falling share prices that money is not going to come from outside investors and getting it from lenders using Tesla's own stock as collateral will be very difficult if not impossible.
A fast enough fall in sales right alongside a steep fall in stock price could bankrupt Tesla.
Yeah, well, what happened this election is the product of people like you not putting the effort which could have been done way back in the mid 2010 when the consequences of the policies chosen to "save the Economy" after the 2008 Crash were starting to get pretty obvious.
The Democrat Party has been using "lesser evil" as their core campaign strategy all the whole becoming increasingly evil since way back and this time around there wasn't even the excuse that a guy like Trump could never get elected because he already had been elected once before.
(Also and judging by how they're voting, Democrats have always been relaxed about the possibility of Trump in the White House, which would explain why they persisted in not moving an inch politically to accommodate anti-Genocide and broader Leftwing demands - for all their alarmist talk they were much more willing to lose the election to Trump than to lose AIPAC funding or their non-executive board memberships and speech circuit rewards for being friendly to certain very rich people).
For any sufficiently principled person, the policies of the Democrat party since way back when Obama decided to "save the Economy" after the 2008 Crash by protecting the Asset Owners whilst letting those who work for a living to rot should have been enough to prompt them to become politically active, or at least the first Trump victory should've. In fact it was the British version of such policies (as I was living in Britain at the time) that prompted me to become politically active about 8 years ago in a country which wasn't even my country of birth, even before the whole Brexit mess.
At the very least you should have been heavily criticizing the Democrat Party leadership during all this time, both on the evil things they did and the good things they refuse to do. An argument for withholding criticism can only really be made for the period during the electoral campaign, not for before and most certainly not for after it.
Truly principled people who only voted Democrat because they felt they had no other option are right now laying it out thick on that party's leadership for what they did, are doing and are refusing to do, not coming out to defend them.
--
All that said, political activism is something you start investing in sooner rather than later, because even local changes require a lot of people to change their minds and that takes time to make (plus if a movement against them starts growing sitting politicians will take note and might change the way they act), so you start now, not spend the next couple of years wallowing in helplessness only to get to the next election, be faced with an almost-Fascist Democrat candidate all over again and claim "there's nothing we could have done, we just have to vote for this one to stop the pure-Fascist candidate".
You don't just have to help the public become aware of certain things, you have to find those who feel like you, organize and start trying things out to spread awareness even before even truly starting to change public perception of certain subjects and Democrat party representatives, so it takes years, not months.
The worst that can happen is that nothing comes out of it, but then again you might make a difference if you do try, whilst if you don't try anything at all, nothing is exactly what you'll achieve and in a few years' time you'll be repeating a variant of the very same claims of helplessness you're making now.
State violence is still violence, the main difference being that it's supported by a bunch of documents containing rules for all supposedly agreed to by Society (i.e. Laws) and an set of processes (the Justice System) to supposedly make such violence only ever be exercised when required, and in a fair and proportinate way, hence why such set of processes includes things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and more generally "Due Process" (elements which the simpletons often dislike since for them Justice is as just a way to hurt people they dislike, exactly as Trump is using it).
So yeah, emprisionment differs only from kidnapping if it's done fairly and proportionatelly, which is what a functional Justice System is supposed to guarantee but often fails to, and the non-functionality of the Justice System in the US has become far too frequent, especially when it comes to non-nationals (though we also see it in the de facto immunity for the ultra rich), especially under Trump. Without the whole fairness and proportionate component, emprisionment is just kidnapping with a bit of performative (theatrical, even) folklore to make it look like the socially approved version.