Jeenyuhs

My colleagues say that you do not respect the rules, if so, I give you a...

No problem with the test, I find it excellent, although I would really like to leave the infinite bullets

1890

Seattle

No @legenda19922

16x10= 160

Deep Android / iOS

7600

2003

1159 1159

1331

Done

5000

726 clap

10/10

3

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday night that the House will vote Thursday on the $1 trillion infrastructure plan, as the future of President Joe Biden's sweeping economic agenda remains uncertain. The vote is set to come as Pelosi works to unite disparate wings of the Democratic Party on both the infrastructure bill and broader $3.5 trillion social and environmental package, all as Congress works to stave off a lapse in government funding by Thursday and hitting the debt limit in October. Pelosi, along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and senior White House officials, spent the weekend working to broker an agreement on the social and environmental package. So far they have been unable to strike a deal between progressive and moderate Democrats on a topline figure for the social and environmental bill or a framework of programs contained in the plan. Pelosi had committed last month to the original Monday deadline for the infrastructure bill, hoping to placate moderates who were wavering in support for the larger budget blueprint. Biden spoke with lawmakers over the weekend on the path forward for his economic agenda, according to a White House official. Upon arrival at the White House on Sunday from Camp David, the President expressed optimism about negotiations but acknowledged, "It's going to take the better part of the week I think." On Friday, Biden had said the talks were at a "stalemate." "Building on the progress from last week following White House meetings and the announcement of options for revenue that come from ending failed special giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations, the President spoke with members about the path forward, as did White House senior staff, the Legislative Affairs team, and Cabinet members," a White House official said. "There was also extensive work on the staff level." "Engagement is happening through the weekend into Monday," the official said, arguing, "It continues to be clear that there is strong resolve across the caucuses behind passing these bills so that our economy delivers for the middle class and not just those at the top." Throughout Sunday, Democrats had signaled the infrastructure bill vote wouldn't happen Monday. Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the leader of House progressives, said on CNN's "State of the Union" there simply aren't enough votes for the party to pass the infrastructure bill right now. A key moderate, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, conceded the vote would likely occur "early next week." And Pelosi acknowledged earlier Sunday she wouldn't bring the measure for a vote knowing it would fail. "We'll bring the bill forward tomorrow for consideration, but, you know, I'm never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn't have the votes," Pelosi said on ABC's "This Week." House progressives have said they will not vote for the separate infrastructure package unless it is accompanied by the much larger social bill, dubbed by the administration as the "Build Back Better" plan. But some moderates have balked at the current $3.5 trillion size of that plan, leaving to feverish negotiations in search of a middle ground. With the thinnest of margins in both chambers, Democrats can afford to lose almost no party votes. "The speaker is an incredibly good vote counter, and she knows exactly where her caucus stands and we've been really clear on that," Jayapal told CNN's Jake Tapper when asked about the planned vote on Monday. "The votes aren't there. I don't think she's going to bring it up." Jayapal, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has said for days that her members will not vote for the $1 trillion bill without passing the $3.5 trillion package aimed at enacting Biden's economic agenda. But her comments Sunday are the clearest sign yet that progressive House members intend to carry through on their threat hours before the planned vote. Gottheimer, who co-chairs the Problem Solvers Caucus, told Tapper that the House would bring the infrastructure bill to the floor for consideration by Monday's deadline, but that a vote won't take place until Tuesday at the earliest. "The way these things work if you start debating it and it rolls over to Tuesday, I don't think — I think we're all reasonable people," Gottheimer said. Pelosi had also suggested the Monday deadline was slipping before formally pushing it. "Let me just say we're going to pass the bill this week," she said. None of the Democrats offered much clarity on the broader negotiations over the larger social safety net plan, which would make major new investments in child care, health care, education and climate change. Pelosi said it was "self-evident" the final bill would be smaller than $3.5 trillion. "Obviously with negotiations there will have to be some changes in that, and the sooner the better," she said. "We will do that. The American people need that to happen." "CNN"

When the company pulled its V-8 models off the menu, it mentioned compliance and supply-chain issues. Now, AMG boss Philipp Schiemer says it was a quality issue. When Mercedes abruptly pulled the vast majority of its V-8 models from the U.S. market for the upcoming model year, it did something not just bizarre in the conservative auto business but unheard of in any sector. It's certainly not typical for a large automaker with huge manufacturing capacity to close the ordering books on its most po[CENSORED]r and profitable products—especially when many of those models have recently debuted. As for why, the company can't seem to get its story straight. Reached for comment in August when the news first broke, a Mercedes-AMG spokesperson provided the following carefully parsed statement: "The Company’s prioritized focus to comply with various global, external and internal requirements, as well as several other factors, including but not limited to challenges in the supply ch Regardless, a quality issue cannot fully explain it. Because while that'd be a natural reason for an automaker to suspend production, it does not explain why the company—as a spokesperson confirmed—is extending production of the 2021 G-class despite the 2022 G-class being off-menu. It also does not explain why Aston Martin, which uses Mercedes's 4.0-liter V-8, has confirmed that it will not be affected by this. And it certainly does not explain why this problem is different on a market-by-market basis. Supply-chain constraints are similarly unable to explain the totality of the issue, especially given that this came largely without warning and the company is still supplying Aston Martin with V-8s. That leaves the compliance angle, alluded to in the official statement and Schiemer's comments. Most engine changes require recertification by relevant authorities, meaning that it can be a lengthy process to get a vehicle back on sale when there's an unexpected change. American authorities, in particular, have often been slow to certify vehicles in general and especially German ones in the wake of wide-ranging emissions scandals. That may be the most likely explanation. One lingering question remains, though. Why—if it's a bureaucratic holdup or a simple supply chain problem forcing recertification—is Mercedes being so opaque about it? We've reached out to the automaker for further clarification and will update when we hear back. ain, have an impact on the offering of the product portfolio in various markets. • Mercedes-Benz is exploring every opportunity to solve the challenges at hand as soon as possible. • We will be working closely with our dealers and customers to help alleviate any inconvenience resulting from delays. • We are working on a solution as quickly as possible. • Depending on the market, this concerns different model series for model year 2022. Please understand that we will not comment further on this matter." Ahead of the Munich IAA auto show, though, Road & Track sat down with Mercedes's head of the Top End Vehicle Group, Philipp Schiemer. Schiemer, who oversees Mercedes-AMG, Mercedes-Maybach, and the G-class, said that he couldn't provide more info than that information-light official statement. Despite that, his response suggested a different reason than what we've heard so far. "I cannot provide you with more details. It's a quality issue. We are updating our vehicles every year, and we are not satisfied with the quality. And for us it's quality first. So we have to do some retesting and this is the process we are in at the moment. So it depends from model to model," Schiemer said, noting that the V-8 S580 is still being offered in the U.S. "So it's from vehicle to vehicle, from country to country a different kind of situation." Asked whether he could elaborate on the quality issue, Schiemer replied bluntly: "No." "AutoNews"

Like many ravaging storms that came before it, Hurricane Ida exposed the fragility of Louisiana’s power grid, knocking out electricity to hundreds of thousands of people and businesses, including nearly all of New Orleans. It also laid bare growing doubts about the ability of the state’s largest energy provider to protect against the effects of climate change, including the increasingly destructive weather it causes. The company, Entergy Corp., has told regulators and shareholders that it is committed to protecting the grid against extreme weather, having spent billions of dollars to upgrade towers, poles and lines. But Entergy also has a history of resisting changes that would have made the electric grid more resilient, from developing new transmission lines to expanding solar power, according to an examination of regulatory filings and other public documents and interviews with industry researchers and clean-power proponents. These actions show that while Entergy isn’t opposed to renewable power, it fights projects it doesn’t control and doesn’t want competition from other companies or homeowners trying to generate their own power from the sun. That has angered local elected officials and environmental advocates, who say Entergy is blocking needed change to maintain its dominance of the local energy market. The New Orleans City Council, which regulates a local Entergy subsidiary, is using the Ida outages to force a reckoning on Entergy. The council announced an investigation of the failures that led to the citywide blackout and asked state and federal regulators to review the company’s planning for long-range power lines. Fourteen deaths have been attributed to Hurricane Ida in New Orleans, 10 of which were caused by excessive heat during the outage, according to the Louisiana Health Department. The council fined Entergy $5 million in 2018 for hiring actors to pose as proponents of a new power plant and $1 million more in 2019 for failing to maintain poles and lines (Entergy is suing to appeal the latter fine). In March, the council launched a management audit of the company following outages during an extreme cold snap. “It comes down to credibility,” said council member Joe Giarrusso, a member of the Utility, Cable, Telecommunications and Technology Committee. His message to Entergy: “You are providing one of the city’s most crucial resources, and the people who live here have a right to know what has happened.” Entergy, which reported $1.4 billion in profits last year, said in a statement that claims that it delays expanding of transmission lines “are without merit and have no basis in fact.” The company said that it is “actively working toward a carbon-free future,” and that its system has become more reliable in recent years. The frustration in New Orleans reflects wider problems with America’s fractured energy system and President Joe Biden’s hopes to transform it into a seamless network able to harness new sources of solar, wind and other clean power. Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan calls for billions of dollars for new transmission lines and the creation of a federal agency that would remove bureaucratic obstacles to developing them. That kind of overhaul would be a challenge for regional monopolies like Entergy, an investor-owned utility whose business model relies on control of its network of fossil fuel-burning power plants and transmission lines. Entergy says it supports a transition to renewable energy and a stronger grid. But it has acted against that goal while preserving its dominance over a power market that stretches across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas, according to researchers and clean-power advocates. The results, critics say, are missed opportunities to better withstand extreme weather, draw electricity from more sources and restore power after storms more quickly. During Ida, all eight of Entergy’s high-voltage transmission lines into New Orleans failed. Seven months earlier, when a February storm disabled many power plants in Entergy’s region, there weren’t enough transmission lines to deliver necessary power from other parts of the country, leading to widespread outages, according to a report on the storm from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, or MISO, which oversees the grid. John Norris, a former member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who advocates for renewable energy, said the two events illustrate the consequences of Entergy’s hindering the development of a larger and more resilient grid. “Our frustration with what’s going on precedes Ida, precedes the freeze last February,” Norris said. “But it’s just a chance for us to draw people’s attention to the fact that this is still not moving forward.” Protecting a monopoly Entergy, formerly known as Middle South Utilities, has existed in various forms for more than a century, wielding considerable political power in the states where it operates. Its headquarters are in New Orleans, where it is the city’s only Fortune 500 company. Like almost all investor-owned utilities, Entergy operates as a state-sanctioned monopoly, allowed to act as the sole electricity provider in its region while subject to strict oversight by government regulators, including of the rates it charges customers. In recent decades, the federal government has tried to bring competition to power markets by forcing utilities to give up control of their transmission systems so other power companies can use them to move electricity, as well. Entergy ran into that more than a decade ago, when it came under investigation by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. The division said it was examining allegations that Entergy was using its control of its regional transmission network to keep competitors from selling power produced at plants that were more efficient and cheaper than its own. In 2012, the Antitrust Division announced that Entergy had satisfied its concerns by taking steps that would allow rivals into its market. One of those steps involved transferring its transmission lines to an independent company. But that never happened. Entergy and a proposed buyer called off the deal in 2013 after state regulators rejected it, saying it would cost consumers too much. Entergy held on to its transmission lines. The company said in a statement that the Justice Department had taken no action on the matter since the investigation “became inactive” in 2012 and that it wasn’t aware of any concerns that the federal agency had about the ownership of its transmission lines. The Justice Department didn't respond to requests for comment. The second piece of Entergy’s deal with the Justice Department did occur. Entergy joined MISO, which oversees a power grid across 15 states in the Midwest and the South. The move was supposed to loosen Entergy’s grip on the local power market. But Entergy remains the dominant player in the group’s Southern region, where it has obstructed plans to build high-voltage transmission lines that could bring in more power from other parts of the country — and other companies — according to industry researchers and former state regulators. Entergy and its consultants slow approvals by raising frequent objections, asking for new studies and accusing MISO of doing something wrong, according to Norris and others. That, they say, has allowed Entergy to protect and expand its fleet of power plants, giving it more control and profits. “MISO says it needs to move more power from north to south or within a region, like in Louisiana. Those are the types of projects that Entergy wants to block,” said Daniel Tait, a researcher for the Energy and Policy Institute, an industry watchdog that advocates for the development of renewable energy in response to climate change. Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, said Entergy is “an extreme example” among old-school utilities that stand to lose from the building of regional transmission lines. “There is an incentive mismatch between what’s good for the public versus what a utility might want to do, which is to protect its legacy power plants that it can still make money off of,” Peskoe said. A demonstration of that, Entergy critics say, is a recent effort to build transmission lines in East Texas. "NBC"

Voted You have voted successfully!

Nothing has happened here, maybe Marian didn't know the rules but admins can use a zp_assassin command every 12 hours, in the case of zp_zombie, zp_human, two per map

Improve your activity