Slashdot Mirror

Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton

nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

nate-silver-warns-media-against-dangerous-assumption-trump-isnt-really-closing-in-on-hillary

election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump

nate silver forecasts showing clinton with 99 chance of winning dont pass commonsense test

nate silver projects trump will win florida

nate silver 511 chance trump-winning-if-election-held-today

nate silvers terrifying-prediction prepare president-trump

election update as the race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton

Rough summary of your post: instill fear in the voters, and they will flock to an authoritarian who claims to be the only one who can save them.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11...

> that for most of them, this was entirely about putting food on the table

Eh, cut it out with the economic insecurity canard.

Trump lost the portion of the vote coming from people making under $50K/yr.

Furthermore, at the county level - children earning more than their parents was correlated with larger trump gains.

Take, for example, the radical feminist Clementine Ford. She has repeatedly engaged in blatant anti-male harassment and is known to then cry wolf when a man responds with anti-female harassment and had a man fired from his job for his comment. Yet, for some reason, Clementine Ford's account is still miraculously active. No matter what Trump said he did or didn't grab, this woman should be off Twitter permanently by that same policy.

That's seriously the best you could come up with? Some woman making a few dick-themed insults in what looks like larger back-and-forth conversations?

This is what actual harassment looks like.

For one he's targeting visible characteristics (weight, attractiveness, and skin colour) of his targets. Clementine Ford's dick jokes are just non-specific insults since no-one can actually see the target's dick.

Second Milo was the instigator going after people who did nothing to deserve it. There's no context for your examples but they look like excerpts from conversations.

Finally Milo wasn't banned just for posting a few offensive things, he was banned because he knew it would trigger his troll army to join in on the fun by escalating the harassment. You posted no evidence of troll armies from Clementine Ford.

"Your generation already had prohibition to learn from, and yet you still don't get it"

Perhaps you haven't see what class A drug use does to a person and to their family, I have. So spare me your self righteous BS. If alcohol was as addictive as as destructive as heroin or crack it would be prohibited today.

You are proving my original point. The ancestor post I replied to originally said that "the name suits the millennial generation quite well: ambition, arrogance, but wilfully ignorant and/or unaccepting of reality/logic/math." Every modern study I have read places alcohol at the top of the list of worst drugs, above cocaine and opiates. Here is a very readable article with the view points of experts collected. Alcohol is above crack and heroin. You are the one ignoring the facts. I am not being "self righteous." I am being regular righteous.

If you give up the slaver-appeasement Electoral College, how exactly will tyranny of the majority happen?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.

Yeah, but certain regions have certain mentalities, so that invalidates your argument and people live in those areas probably because they agree with the lifestyle and mentality, or if not take it on. The south tends to be more conservative while the west more liberal. Also, there are places where the dead are on record as voting as well as illegals. Take that into account and Trump would have won both. Would you have written the same thing if California, Illinois and NY were red? THE EC is hardly "arbitrary," as it has been around since the Constitution and ensures that all parts of the country have a voice.

Because the three regular editors are Hillary shills that won't accept what happened.

Then they'll love the news that the Emoluments clause is being talked about more seriously.
Or Trump has some major conflicts of interest, and can make him and his some big bucks being president.

Donald Trump and the Emoluments Clause, explained:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

So my rural state will get basically no political say in picking a President?

Yeah, there's a reason things like the electoral college were set up and it was to give states good reasons for being part of the union.

And slaves, don't forget slaves.

How else do make slaves count for 3/5s of a person politically without giving them an actual vote?

Well you invent the electoral college where slaves can increase the number of electors without having a voice in who they are.

There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.

I'm hardly a fan of Glenn Beck, but I must point out that he has been sounding more contrite since he left Fox.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/0...

Hell, it's not even "safe" to defend the freedom of speech anymore.
https://youtu.be/68NHUV5me7Q?t...

Yes, Prof. Peterson's got some seriously flawed views on gender. He's also got some great knowledge on social psychology, fascism, the role of speech and violence in society, and the harm of excessive compassion. He's got some great thoughts on how the current social policies towards gender actually can exacerbate the problems facing LBGTQ people and send society into authoritarianism, fascism, and violence.

Prof. Peterson says that the point of free speech is to get the boneheaded ideas and opinions out in the open so they can be corrected through dialogue and conversation. But his opponents boycott debate and play noise during a rally about free speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

When this attitude is taken towards a large group of people, most go into the closet. Their views simmer and become anger. And then, they go out and vote--and everyone wonders where the "crazy Trump supporters" came from.

By being so sure that we're right and harassing those who disagree with us (see: Brendan Eich), you activate authoritarianism:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11...

You don't want authoritarian leaders. It can get very ugly very fast. Stop persecuting those who disagree with you, even if you know they're wrong. Engage them in conversation and show them how they're wrong. Don't silence them. Don't harass them. Haven't we learned anything from Martin Luther King Jr.?

Personally, I agree with the parent. The definition of bigot is "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." When I watch the rallies between Prof. Peterson (trying to engage in conversation) and those who oppose him (silencing him and working to get him fired)... it's pretty clear who is intolerant.


Other sources:
https://www.youtube.com/user/J...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's a crock. The only "irregularity" is that their side lost. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/...

I'm not so sure it's a crock. I don't think that Clinton should challenge the election results, because even if the electronic voting machines were manipulated in Trump's favor, it's still clear that the voters were split basically down the middle so picking the wrong narrow-margin winner isn't a significant failure of democracy. Throwing the new president's legitimacy in serious doubt, perhaps causing a delay and a new election or possibly worse, would be.

However, I think we really should take a very hard look at these sorts of irregularities, both odd differences between counties that do and don't use the voting machines, and unusual discrepancies between exit polls and official results. And where the irregularities are significant, we should take a hard look at how the vote might have been manipulated and close those holes. I think the best way to do that is to institute a verifiable voting scheme like Chaum's Scantegrity III, but it could also be done by switching to paper ballots, or even by closer and more thorough auditing of the voting machine configuration and usage (though the latter is really difficult).

The bottom line is that it's very bad for our democracy to have these sorts of open questions. There will always be potential for election fraud, but we need to have confidence that it is sufficiently small that it can tip only the tightest of races. Right now I don't think we have that.

It's a crock. The only "irregularity" is that their side lost. http://www.vox.com/2016/11/22/...

But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.

And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.

Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.

Try the free USA - not the brainwashed goosestepping Trump-tards. See here.

I am currently wearing a t-shirt depicting President Lincoln holding a cat, with the caption "Bromance". When my far-right, conservative co-worker saw the shirt, he launched into a tirade. I did not realize that republicans had disavowed Lincoln until then.

The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.

Who on earth moderated this as informative? There is no such thing as the "Representation of the People Act of 2002," unless you happen to be living in India.

There is an informal agreement among U.S. media outlets to hold back exit polling results until the polls close in a state -- which, incidentally, Fox News broke in 2014 in certain respects.

There is a constitutional amendment you may have heard of that sets a really, REALLY high bar for any law which would prevent the news media from reporting information. It is completely legal to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed. The proof: the linked article.

Your rebuttal: point to a U.S. federal or state law, by title or code section, that says otherwise. Go...

No, they aren't equivalent. The side effects - including severe depression - were worse than the majority of women put up with from the pill.

Under our glorious capitalist system, we consider the poor to be responsible for their own plight, and we have no obligation to help them.

It's worth noting that whatever the cause, there has been a huge decline in global extreme poverty. I believe capitalism, global trade, and use of fossil fuels deserve the lion's share of the credit for that. For example, in East Asia

Here's an amazing fact: The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 114 million from 2012 to 2013.

That is a simply massive one-year decline, and it's not even the biggest drop in recent years. From 2010 to 2011, global poverty fell by 132 million people. From 2008 to 2013, the number fell by an average of 88 million people per year. If that rate of progress keeps up, global poverty will be eliminated in less than a decade.

Spoiler: They don't expect the trend to continue because of Sub-Saharan Africa which is far less tractable than East Asia is.

The purple line representing East Asia shows the most striking trajectory. In 1990, a large majority â" 60.2 percent â" of people in the region lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, only 3.5 percent did. Thatâ(TM)s a shift of mind-boggling scale. And it means that extreme poverty in that area is now a rather small part of the overall global problem.

Of course, it's worth noting that China which has most of the population of the area introduced massive pro-capitalism and trade liberalizing reforms at the beginning of this period.

You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, but it doesn't change that the world is improving at an enormous rate due to the very systems you deride and the very fossil fuel use that is supposedly such a good idea to reduce. Yet as usual, we have a bunch of would-be environmentalists who remain ignorant of the most important improvement in the well-being of humanity in history.

This map seems to illustrate where the problem is.

My reading is that the Sioux are a bit pissed off that the planners decided they were worried about Bismark's water supply being polluted but not theirs. I suspect that the burial sites thing is just being pushed as an additional reason.

Why are so many people still researching the association between smoking and lung cancer?

Because there are still anti-science jackoffs who try to say smoking is just fine.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

I have no desire to come to the defense of Mike Pence. However, it should be noted that he didn't say smoking is "just fine" -- in fact he said "smoking is not good for you." But in the same piece, he also said that "smoking doesn't kill." And well, facepalm.

Maybe he was just nostalgic?

Why are so many people still researching the association between smoking and lung cancer?

Because there are still anti-science jackoffs who try to say smoking is just fine.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...

Try replacing "Venus" with "Earth" in the summary. Makes you wonder if Venus is going to be our future, particularly if this article's scenario comes to pass...

The question of what Donald Trump "really believes" has no answer. It is a category error.

When he utters words, his primary intent is not to *say* something, to describe a set of facts in the world; his primary intent is to *do* something, i.e., to position himself in a social hierarchy. This essential distinction explains why Trump has so flummoxed the media and its fact-checkers; it’s as though they are critiquing the color choices of someone who is colorblind.

If you live in a state where the outcome of the presidential election is not in doubt, then voting for a third-party candidate is a sensible idea.

And when enough people in that "safe" state vote for a third-party candidate, suddenly the state isn't quite so "safe" any longer. Remember Brexit?

In an interview on BBC’s Victoria Live, one man who voted "Leave" said, "I didn’t think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain."

The man, who was introduced as Adam, said he is now "worried" because he assumed "Remain" would win. He added, "I think the period of uncertainty that we’re going to have for the next couple of months — that’s just been magnified now. So yeah, quite worried."

not sure why im bothering with an AC, slow work day maybe, but the reason you get modded down for saying that is because unlike your assertion, it is in fact, not a fact. its not true, in the slightest. and only an idiot would think as such

According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, in fact the assertion that "most Trump supporters are racist" is actually true (at least if you consider "holding racist views" the same as being racist). And it's true by a wide margin. There have been other polls showing the same result, and if you want I can point them out to you.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/1...

That's nonsense. Immigrants have always been subject to inspections and requirements to fit societal standards. Storekeepers and others also freely practiced discrimination (Jews, Irish, Germans, Asians, etc.).

http://www.history.com/news/9-...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
http://www.museumoffamilyhisto...
http://journalofethics.ama-ass...
http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologi...

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side on this debate. I'm saying that the setting of standards and rejecting immigrants who fail to meet those standards is well established in American history (sometimes with tragic consequences).

Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton

I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all". http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1...

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/1...

I think it might have been this one. Not that Science is broken as a tool, but science as an institution has problems.

I'm gonna guess you are too young to remember when Newt was speaker of the house.

He has always been this way. Not only that, but he is probably the one politician who bears the most responsibility for turning the republican party into the party of Trump.

Back in 1978, when I first came to AEI, Tom Mann and I set up a series of small, off the record dinners with some new members of Congress. And one of them, Newt Gingrich, stood out right away. As a brand new member of the House, he had a full-blown theory of how Republicans could break out of their seemingly permanent minority, and build a majority.

And over the next 16 years, he put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994.

The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that shit. They all came in believing that Washington was a cesspool. So what followed has been a very deliberate attempt to blow up and delegitimize government, not just the president but the actions of government itself in Washington.

And Republican leaders, like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, were complicit in this. I think when Republicans had their stunning victory in 2010, Cantor et al thought they could now co-opt these people. Instead, they were co-opted themselves.
-- Norm Orenstein author It's Even Worse Than It Looks

That's what I came to say. It's not "heartbreaking," it's completely illegal. It's so illegal in fact, I couldn't believe that she had actually said it, and read the article to make sure. Here's a transcript of the interview. I can't find anywhere she actually said it. As a lawyer, she knows to be more careful in what she says than that.

It really does make you wonder why the numerous soft targets like malls haven't been hit in the US, especially after Kenya.

Because they're already hit almost daily by domestic terrorists. ISIS just hasn't got what it takes to succeed in the US's highly competitive market of bloodbaths.

If Trump is soooooo racist, why hasn't it been an issue for the decades he's built a global company?

You are a fucking ignorant idiot.

He's been being called a racist since at LEAST 1973. By the Department of Justice.

"In 1973, the Trump Management Corporation — run by 27-year-old Donald Trump — was sued by the Department of Justice for violating the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, Trump's company was accused of refusing to rent to or negotiate with black tenants, changing the terms of leases based on race, and lying to black applicants about whether apartments were available."

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/3/90...

* More muslims commit terrorist attacks than non-muslims

If you're talking about the US, this statistic is simply incorrect. There's some differing definitions, but something like 6% of all terrorist attacks and 35% of deadly terrorist attack are committed by Muslims. The remainder, which is obviously the majority, aren't.

I think you misunderstand what the OP was talking about. What he's saying is that the IRS has enough information that they can calculate taxes for most people and it wouldn't require them to file. This is done in other countries. Reference #2 in the following link:

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/8/11...

Unless wind/solar/etc work when it's cloudy or windy like in other parts of the world nearly all the time it'll never replace other sources like hydro-electric or nuclear.

That is the main reason that investing in grid infrastructure is a major requirement for modern energy systems. When the wind is still in Utah they can import electricity from California solar panels and when it is night in California they can import electricity from windmills in Utah, etc.

Essentially, with a big enough grid you can take the concept of net-metering as applied to individual homes and scale it up to entire cities and even states. The grid acts like a giant battery. It won't be enough to get to 100% renewables on its own, but an integrated grid is probably the single largest enabler of 100% renewable energy.

Consumer Reports found that the Model S has "too many problems to recommend". Green Car Reports estimates that two-thirds of early Model S drivetrains will have to be replaced before 100000 km. While that may not necessarily be representive, of current production, the ongoing problems with the Model X are.

Since Tesla plans to ramp up production at an unprecedented rate in the coming years and Tesla's culture is much more focused on rapid change and pushing deadlines than on the engineering and long-term testing cycle the rest of the car industry works by, it will be very hard to improve this. Some analysts think that this will actually be their biggest problem while they are trying to gain foothold in the mass market.

First, you can get solar panels on your home. This often pays back in 5-10 years.

You can donate to groups which work with alternative energies. For example, Everybody Solar helps non-profits such as schools, homeless shelters and science museums get solar panels. So you can help the environment while helping other people. Any eventual long-term solution is going to involve at least some nuclear and CASEnergy is a group pushing for more more nuclear plants that you can donate to http://casenergy.org/.

You can also donate to candidates who will help. Local candidates may matter the most, but in the US there are a handful of obvious elections to point out. One of them is Emily Cain http://emilycain.com/ who is running for the House in a very competitive district in Maine against an opponent who is very not good on environmental issues. Every dollar helps.

A very interesting technology choice is a this: get a very large, very hot ceramic container and put all the guns in it. Then melt them.

Responses to the inevitable:
- Of course you can't get rid of all guns, but you can make them much harder to obtain.. and make it so people can be arrested simply for attempting to obtain them or cary them.
    - This is proven by other countries, which have much lower rates of gun ownership, and fewer deaths in both single murders and multiple murders.
    - There are more privately-owned guns in the US than any other country in the world.
- Of course there are other ways to kill people. Yet automatic weapons remain the choice of tool for mass killings. Probably because it's the best.
- No, guns do not reduce crime
- No, you will never be a hero with your gun.

One source, amongst many:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9...

I was just reading a related article on Tesla and the underlying claim is it may be a symptom of a bigger problem.

The thrust of the argument is that cars in general are shockingly reliable, this isn't an easy thing to do which is why car companies have been working at it a very long time and still have trouble.

Tesla is very new to making cars and their cars haven't been around a long time. The chances are really good that their cars will have huge reliability problems as they age.

They're unlikely to execute their (indispensable) engineers and scientists for failure. They are however likely to imprison or execute their (expendable) extended family members. Often the people sent to North Korean prison camps have no idea they were even related to the person for whom they're being punished.

You think they have an ugly website and therefore their reporting on the cellphone study is wrong??

No, those are two separate conditions. The first is true and the second is false. My wanting cell phones to cause cancer is not going to make it so.

Well your claim that they did bad journalism seemed predicated on the idea their design was poor.

However, that Vox is an ugly website is not a matter of opinion.

If anyone doesn't believe me, here, go look for yourself. I want someone here to come back and tell us that it's not an ugly website. If one person (not an AC) believes that this is a well-designed and attractive website, I will retract my words and refund your money.

http://www.vox.com/

Fine, I think it's good.

Structurally the main page is a bit of a mess conflating their big current stories and topics but every site does that. If I click on one of the stories it's fairly clean text and all on one page, I'd say that's well above average.

The cards are a new idea, I don't know if they're a good one, but they seem well executed.

The only issue I can see is they've gone away from the traditional newspaper design and are getting their inspiration from "Promoted Stories" and other click bait sites. There's a bit of a negative connotation from that but once you get over the association it's fine.

You think they have an ugly website and therefore their reporting on the cellphone study is wrong??

No, those are two separate conditions. The first is true and the second is false. My wanting cell phones to cause cancer is not going to make it so.

However, that Vox is an ugly website is not a matter of opinion.

If anyone doesn't believe me, here, go look for yourself. I want someone here to come back and tell us that it's not an ugly website. If one person (not an AC) believes that this is a well-designed and attractive website, I will retract my words and refund your money.

http://www.vox.com/

OK, I just realized that there are some of you who may believe that I'm overdoing my criticism of vox.com, so I'm going to post a story from their motherfucking front page today. It's an "explainer cardstack" about a meme that I guarantee you have not heard of or seen if you are out of junior high school. A news story about a meme.

Imagine, these are people with advanced degrees in journalism who are writing this shit.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/1...

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/1...

You prove my point: don't you see how incredibly patronizing that is?

Patronizing it may be, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Fact #1: The Internet voters did, in fact, nominate and then vote for "Boaty McBoatFace".

Fact #2: The Republican primary voters did, in fact, vote to nominate Donald Trump, who just today has suggested he might just go ahead and default on the nation's debt in order to save us money, because he literally thinks that is how government fiscal policy works.

Let's face it, voters are often not well-informed, competent, or thinking rationally. Direct Democracy would work if they were, but that's simply not how the world works, and that's why we don't see any countries based on Direct Democracy. Given that, there is indeed value in restricting voter's choices to include only viable, non-disastrous options. Would you go to a restaurant that put Hemlock soup on the menu? Would you buy a car with gas, brake, and self-destruct pedals? Would you call it patronizing if a company refused to sell you those things?

the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.

They are not slowing down anything.

Vox has a better rundown of the FDA's announced regulations.

The good news is that it's not armageddon for vapers and sellers:

the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.

When I smoke, I still smoke cigs. But I have lots of friends who vape. Personally, I find the propylene glycol vapor more irritating than tobacco smoke.