Uh, no, the SR-71 didn't have an "X" designator. It was an "SR", not X(Experimental).
X series planes do receive a new designation when they become slated for regular production - see the X-35 becoming the F-35: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The production version is technically new/different, but it's more the relationship of prototype and production model (though prototypes planned as such have a Y designation rather than X).
Revoking a clearance for political beliefs is some seriously dangerous ground. Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not? This is something that could cut both ways. Should someonwho was an active Tea Party/etc member during the Obama administration have had their clearance revoked? What part of anything she had done, up until the point she actually leaked classified information, would you suggest crossed a line?
Unless the political activity itself is somehow actively seditious (like being a Communist during the Cold War, for instance) or otherwise links you to anti-government groups, I don't think you can simply use being politically active and motivated as a clearance determinant. Maybe if the activity itself somehow does, such as if someone was a diehard Wikileaks supporter or such - but certainly not for anything remotely mainstream.
Not necessarily. The local paper isn't required to print your letter - it's a private institution.
But that said, the First Amendment prevents the Government from telling/forcing them to not print your letter. See the difference? The first is a voluntary choice, the second is the Government making them do something. If the Government told Twitter to ban you, that's a clear First Amendment violation, but if Twitter does it on their own, that's not the same.
Which of course, doesn't mean that Trump blocking someone is the same thing. I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem as if there might be at least a slim reed to hang this argument off of (that blocking prevents you from making statements related to the government, and that if he doesn't want to listen he can just mute instead). Should be interesting to see how it pans out, either way.
I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off. I think it's also fair to say that the President (or his staff) are under no obligation to read what any given person wrote to them on Twitter. But that said, this is something that falls between the two, because it's also not just a matter of not seeing you - it's a matter of preventing you from seeing what he's posted. He could easily mute people, rather than block them, for instance.
Now, that latter part may not be a first amendment violation specifically, but it does possibly fall under other legal provisions about transparency laws, since despite it being his personal account, he's clearly using it for official business. Ah well - in the end, it's just more business for the lawyers.:)
Information (generally) isn't classified because the information is good - it's almost always because of the method used to collect it. The goal isn't necessarily to protect the information, so much as the means by which they got that information. I can't speak to the current situation, but that's usually the case with classification. It doesn't then matter if that's information about the next terrorist attack, or about what kind of toilet paper Abu Bad Guy prefers because it doesn't chafe his backside.
Having the Japanese Navy know that we're aware they plan to attack Midway is bad, but having them realize that means we're reading their coded transmissions is far, far worse. It means they'll change their codes, and we can't read them any more. If it was a human agent, it means that guy is probably going to get shot, or at the very least will have to run and won't be able to send any more reports.
The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.
I guess we should have ignored all that stuff back then.
That's a great argument for not interfering in the future. It's not a great argument for what we should do about others doing it to us. The US has bombed lots of countries - does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders if other countries decide to come fire cruise missiles at us? My commute is bad enough without having to add road closures from bomb damage to it.
I can freely say that maybe we shouldn't bomb other countries, while simultaneously saying that we should be stopping them from bombing us.
Not all attribution is equal, just like not all evidence is equal. A lot of evidence cited in attribution is definitely circumstantial. Reuse of malware is just one example I've seen cited. But that's not all there is - there's also a number of other things to look at, such as means and motive.
That said, it's one thing to spoof your IP. It's another to try and convincingly plant enough evidence that someone else did a complex attack, especially after that code has been picked over by experts. That's not to say people don't try it - but when even advanced nation state actors make code errors that cause entire malware campaigns to get caught and unravel (see the programming error that caused Stuxnet to be discovered, for instance), it's hard to think that someone could perfectly fake all the evidence. Not impossible, certainly, but far from easy.
And we've seen at least one recent example of someone trying it and failing. The Lazarus group (commonly linked to North Korea) tried to put in a bunch of Russian/Cyrillic into some of their malware, only to have it pointed out as nothing like what a native Russian speaker would use. (See http://baesystemsai.blogspot.c... )
Ultimately, if someone wants to make an accusation that an attack was a false flag, I'd like to see proof of that. I'm not going to believe some crazy wild Rube-Goldberg-esque scenario over a seemingly straightforward and obvious one, especially when the arguments for the former are coming from the very people who stand most to gain from the attack, or from deflecting blame, or even just sowing confusion about it.
Or on Climate Change. Or on really anything else that doesn't fit with their preferred outcome - they'll ignore the facts and focus on any reed no matter how thin to cling to. If you manage to knock that away, they'll shift to something else. They can't possibly admit they just might be wrong. It's a dogmatic, as opposed to scientific, approach. "The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it because clearly it does, and that's what I've always believed, so I always will."
Observation: A lot of them will be screwed when the travel market tanks, because this world isn't a zero-sum game. Foreign travel is tons of money that comes into the USA each year, both in terms of tourism and business travel.
Second Observation: What happens when those major international companies start discovering that it's easier to move operations to a country that doesn't make international travel ridiculously painful?
Note that this sort of thing does actually exist, such as in Alaska for instance, where Alaska residents get a check as their share of the oil money from the state. It's not enough to live on, but it's extra dollars in everyone's pocket, and everyone gets it as long as they're a state resident. It's not 'free money', it's a share of the value of the oil being extracted.
UBI is the notion that we should do something like that for everyone nationwide, enough to live on, and use part of the national GDP to do it. I don't know that it's quite workable or necessary yet, but in a hypothetical future where robots have taken over a large part of the labor market, it probably makes a lot more sense. If we did it right now, you'd probably see a lot of disruption leading to a state where you really don't make any more money than you did before, just that your salary is about $15,000 less but you get $15,000 in UBI. It wouldn't be worth the disruption, probably - though it would have other benefits, such as the fact that we could get rid of the overhead used to manage existing benefit programs (and the programs). You wouldn't need anyone to run Social Security, Food Stamps, TANF, etc - just one guy to print and mail checks to everybody. You also wouldn't need a Minimum Wage Law, since everyone already gets enough to live on, so if someone wants to work for $1/hour, hey, it's his time to do as he likes with.
Of course you can't just print more money. Much as with any other program or support or such, it has to come from some sort of actual productive activity.
"Money" is just an abstraction of all the productive goods, services, etc, that are made by the economy. It's the medium of exchange that lets me trade between bushels of wheat, gallons of gasoline, an iPad, a car, etc without trying to guess at what a reasonable rate is for wheat to cars. Inflation and Deflation occur when the supply of Money change relative to the actual amounts of production (which is also constantly changing).
So for instance, if you just print more money, you haven't actually created any more VALUE, you've just changed the ratio of dollars (or whatever) to $productiveunit. Likewise, if you went around and confiscated half the dollars in peoples' hands and burned them, you haven't destroyed any "value" (assuming it was done equally) since each dollar is now worth twice as much in $productiveunits.
Thus, if you wanted to fund something, like a UBI, you can't just print more (paper or digital) money. You need to assign some sort of productive value to it (basically through some sort of tax or other measure).
NASA is fine, it's the congresscritters that run NASA's budget that you'd have to worry about, demanding that you get DLC from most or all of the 50 states to get all the components you need to get your rocket in the air.
Based on Department of Labor and other numbers, something like 2 to 3 percent of the U.S. workforce is primarily employed as a professional driver of some sort, adding up everything from short and long haul truckers to taxi drivers and so forth.
On one hand, even a 3 percent jump in the unemployment rate wouldn't be catastrophic, given where we're at right now (4.3-4.4%). Adding three percent would put us at mid-2013 unemployment levels. It would also be reasonably geographically distributed, so no one area would likely be significantly worse off (roughly speaking).
On the other hand, we're talking about essentially adding a +3 to any unemployment number, meaning that depending on where we are in the business cycle, it can be a lot worse. Having it happen in 2013 would boost us over 10% unemployment, and at the height of the big recession (2009-10) it would be almost 13%. Worse, you're not going to find a lot of jobs for those people, because their primary skill (driving, especially ones with special requirements like CDL/Hazmat) isn't worth anything at all, nor is it easily transferable. How many of them are going to be able to learn to do something better/more valuable? If they could have, wouldn't many of them already have done so?
And on the gripping hand, note that most of those jobs pay decently enough, ranging from $14 to $20 an hour on average, and while that isn't get-rich money, it's at least enough to live on. What happens when those jobs go away, and create downward pressure on pay for any job below that level by increasing the labor supply for lower-paying low/no skill jobs?
Yes. College age kids are more likely to spend their time doing things like going to college rather than working an entry level no skill job, if given the choice. It's a shocking proposition, I know.
I might work less at my current job. That doesn't mean I would sit on my butt and watch Netflix all day.
I've actually had periods where I wasn't employed for a reasonable stretch of time. Sure, I did a bunch of video gaming at first, but pretty soon I got bored and restless, and needed to find something productive to do. So yes, I'd find something useful to occupy my time. I might not be punching a clock at a corporate office, though - I might start doing independent hacking and vulnerability research for instance. I might set out coding new apps, or other such things. I might do something entirely different like learn more about automotive computer networks. But I sure wouldn't be idle.
Why though? The idea of UBI is that it doesn't change if you get paid for a regular job. You'd get your UBI plus whatever you earn for working.
I guess you could say you're getting out of paying taxes, but how is that any different from the current system where you work at a job and pay taxes on that income? There's no additional incentive from the existence of UBI specifically. I suppose you could argue that payroll taxes are needed to fund it, but that's a big assumption, and many of the cases for UBI assume it's coming from something else (since it often comes in scenarios where there just isn't enough work/jobs for everyone due to automation or such).
Worse, what impact do you think it will have on business travel?
It's even worse if other countries start imposing reciprocal restrictions on travelers from the USA. What do you think will happen to global businesses that need to be able to send people around the world, if/when it becomes a nightmare to travel to and from the U.S.? All of a sudden it starts to become a lot more attractive to move your headquarters and any international operations to Europe or Asia, and reduce the U.S. to a subsidiary that handles only domestic business.
The FBI may not have the best skills at cyber forensics, but they clearly have the legal authorities to investigate a crime such as what the FCC alleged. They do also have access to other expertise beyond that of their agents, as well.
As to whether I'd trust them to do it? The FBI has a certain tribal mentality, and doesn't take kindly to being told not to investigate, or worse to quash an ongoing investigation for political reasons. There's a reason that Assistant Director Mark Felt became Deep Throat - it had nothing to do with his political affiliation, and everything to do with his taking offense at the Nixon patsy of a Director telling them to call off their investigation. That said, I don't know that I disagree with your suggestion that the FBI needs to made more independent of the executive branch. I might even go so far as to suggest the independence of the rest of the DoJ should be considered.
"So as long as your network operator is cooperative"
Translation:
"So as long as you fork over all the extra cash that Verizon/AT&T/etc want for the privilege, you can use your cellular data plan directly without Wifi just like a normal mobile device"
From what I've seen, the only thing that really has any impact is loss of clearance. Otherwise, they turn around and wind up with a new job for another contracting company at a different agency. I've known and worked with people in the government/contracting world who were either fired or quit just ahead of being fired, that were right back in another job at the drop of a hat.
A couple of nitpicks:
One, the battery factory is in Nevada. Musk's car factory is in California, as is his rocket factory.
Two, the pollution this agreement deals with is the sort that has an affect on a global scale, hence the need for a global agreement.
Three, China is actually stating they'll remain in the Paris agreement regardless of what Trump does.
If Trump thinks he can negotiate a better deal, then I'm pretty sure most people, including those CEOs, would be all for him taking a crack at it. What he's considering is nothing of the sort.
Outsourcing is part of the problem, but you're right, it derives from the mentality that IT is a cost center that must be minimized at every possible turn. It's outdated thinking, going back to the days where if your office network went down, there'd be a bit of inconvenience, but the planes still flew, and it wasn't a big deal. Today, IT is a business critical area, because when your network goes down, the planes stop flying, and you stop making money, never-mind the lingering effects from the terrible publicity or the angry customers. It's not something you can afford to skimp on, on any level.
Unfortunately it will probably take several shocks like this, and some high level careers ending as a result, before they start to wise up.
Also, the demand for jobs today is largely in high-skilled/educated fields. To the extent that there's demand for low-skill jobs, they don't pay anywhere near what could be considered reasonable, and certainly not what you would get paid as a professional driver (delivery/taxi/long-haul) today.
Consider the following:
-The median annual wage for a trucker that works for a private fleet, such as a truck driver employed by Walmart, is $73,000, according to ATA. The Labor Department pegs the median annual salary for all truck drivers at around $40,000.
-The median hourly wage for a taxi driver is $16/hour.
-A Delivery Driver earns an average wage of $13.40 per hour.
While the taxi/delivery numbers aren't great, they're also at least reasonably close to 'livable' numbers, especially when you factor in experience bringing you towards the better end of the range. Now consider that there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US, and another ~250,000 taxi drivers (possibly more if you start adding in Uber/Lyft/etc). The working population of the USA is about 160 million, meaning that we're talking about a pretty significant potential disruption.
And that's if it were only drivers being affected, rather than other large swathes of the labor force, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no, the SR-71 didn't have an "X" designator. It was an "SR", not X(Experimental).
X series planes do receive a new designation when they become slated for regular production - see the X-35 becoming the F-35: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The production version is technically new/different, but it's more the relationship of prototype and production model (though prototypes planned as such have a Y designation rather than X).
Revoking a clearance for political beliefs is some seriously dangerous ground. Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not? This is something that could cut both ways. Should someonwho was an active Tea Party/etc member during the Obama administration have had their clearance revoked? What part of anything she had done, up until the point she actually leaked classified information, would you suggest crossed a line?
Unless the political activity itself is somehow actively seditious (like being a Communist during the Cold War, for instance) or otherwise links you to anti-government groups, I don't think you can simply use being politically active and motivated as a clearance determinant. Maybe if the activity itself somehow does, such as if someone was a diehard Wikileaks supporter or such - but certainly not for anything remotely mainstream.
Not necessarily. The local paper isn't required to print your letter - it's a private institution.
But that said, the First Amendment prevents the Government from telling/forcing them to not print your letter. See the difference? The first is a voluntary choice, the second is the Government making them do something. If the Government told Twitter to ban you, that's a clear First Amendment violation, but if Twitter does it on their own, that's not the same.
Which of course, doesn't mean that Trump blocking someone is the same thing. I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem as if there might be at least a slim reed to hang this argument off of (that blocking prevents you from making statements related to the government, and that if he doesn't want to listen he can just mute instead). Should be interesting to see how it pans out, either way.
It's an interesting question, really.
:)
I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off. I think it's also fair to say that the President (or his staff) are under no obligation to read what any given person wrote to them on Twitter. But that said, this is something that falls between the two, because it's also not just a matter of not seeing you - it's a matter of preventing you from seeing what he's posted. He could easily mute people, rather than block them, for instance.
Now, that latter part may not be a first amendment violation specifically, but it does possibly fall under other legal provisions about transparency laws, since despite it being his personal account, he's clearly using it for official business. Ah well - in the end, it's just more business for the lawyers.
In fairness to them, she also (reportedly) violated some of the things they suggest, like emailing them from her computer at work.
Then again, they also (reportedly) gave away her location (Augusta GA) to the government person they were trying to verify the documents with.
Information (generally) isn't classified because the information is good - it's almost always because of the method used to collect it. The goal isn't necessarily to protect the information, so much as the means by which they got that information. I can't speak to the current situation, but that's usually the case with classification. It doesn't then matter if that's information about the next terrorist attack, or about what kind of toilet paper Abu Bad Guy prefers because it doesn't chafe his backside.
Having the Japanese Navy know that we're aware they plan to attack Midway is bad, but having them realize that means we're reading their coded transmissions is far, far worse. It means they'll change their codes, and we can't read them any more. If it was a human agent, it means that guy is probably going to get shot, or at the very least will have to run and won't be able to send any more reports.
The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.
I guess we should have ignored all that stuff back then.
That's a great argument for not interfering in the future. It's not a great argument for what we should do about others doing it to us. The US has bombed lots of countries - does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders if other countries decide to come fire cruise missiles at us? My commute is bad enough without having to add road closures from bomb damage to it.
I can freely say that maybe we shouldn't bomb other countries, while simultaneously saying that we should be stopping them from bombing us.
Not all attribution is equal, just like not all evidence is equal. A lot of evidence cited in attribution is definitely circumstantial. Reuse of malware is just one example I've seen cited. But that's not all there is - there's also a number of other things to look at, such as means and motive.
That said, it's one thing to spoof your IP. It's another to try and convincingly plant enough evidence that someone else did a complex attack, especially after that code has been picked over by experts. That's not to say people don't try it - but when even advanced nation state actors make code errors that cause entire malware campaigns to get caught and unravel (see the programming error that caused Stuxnet to be discovered, for instance), it's hard to think that someone could perfectly fake all the evidence. Not impossible, certainly, but far from easy.
And we've seen at least one recent example of someone trying it and failing. The Lazarus group (commonly linked to North Korea) tried to put in a bunch of Russian/Cyrillic into some of their malware, only to have it pointed out as nothing like what a native Russian speaker would use. (See http://baesystemsai.blogspot.c... )
Ultimately, if someone wants to make an accusation that an attack was a false flag, I'd like to see proof of that. I'm not going to believe some crazy wild Rube-Goldberg-esque scenario over a seemingly straightforward and obvious one, especially when the arguments for the former are coming from the very people who stand most to gain from the attack, or from deflecting blame, or even just sowing confusion about it.
Or on Climate Change. Or on really anything else that doesn't fit with their preferred outcome - they'll ignore the facts and focus on any reed no matter how thin to cling to. If you manage to knock that away, they'll shift to something else. They can't possibly admit they just might be wrong. It's a dogmatic, as opposed to scientific, approach. "The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it because clearly it does, and that's what I've always believed, so I always will."
Observation: A lot of them will be screwed when the travel market tanks, because this world isn't a zero-sum game. Foreign travel is tons of money that comes into the USA each year, both in terms of tourism and business travel.
Second Observation: What happens when those major international companies start discovering that it's easier to move operations to a country that doesn't make international travel ridiculously painful?
Note that this sort of thing does actually exist, such as in Alaska for instance, where Alaska residents get a check as their share of the oil money from the state. It's not enough to live on, but it's extra dollars in everyone's pocket, and everyone gets it as long as they're a state resident. It's not 'free money', it's a share of the value of the oil being extracted.
UBI is the notion that we should do something like that for everyone nationwide, enough to live on, and use part of the national GDP to do it. I don't know that it's quite workable or necessary yet, but in a hypothetical future where robots have taken over a large part of the labor market, it probably makes a lot more sense. If we did it right now, you'd probably see a lot of disruption leading to a state where you really don't make any more money than you did before, just that your salary is about $15,000 less but you get $15,000 in UBI. It wouldn't be worth the disruption, probably - though it would have other benefits, such as the fact that we could get rid of the overhead used to manage existing benefit programs (and the programs). You wouldn't need anyone to run Social Security, Food Stamps, TANF, etc - just one guy to print and mail checks to everybody. You also wouldn't need a Minimum Wage Law, since everyone already gets enough to live on, so if someone wants to work for $1/hour, hey, it's his time to do as he likes with.
Of course you can't just print more money. Much as with any other program or support or such, it has to come from some sort of actual productive activity.
"Money" is just an abstraction of all the productive goods, services, etc, that are made by the economy. It's the medium of exchange that lets me trade between bushels of wheat, gallons of gasoline, an iPad, a car, etc without trying to guess at what a reasonable rate is for wheat to cars. Inflation and Deflation occur when the supply of Money change relative to the actual amounts of production (which is also constantly changing).
So for instance, if you just print more money, you haven't actually created any more VALUE, you've just changed the ratio of dollars (or whatever) to $productiveunit. Likewise, if you went around and confiscated half the dollars in peoples' hands and burned them, you haven't destroyed any "value" (assuming it was done equally) since each dollar is now worth twice as much in $productiveunits.
Thus, if you wanted to fund something, like a UBI, you can't just print more (paper or digital) money. You need to assign some sort of productive value to it (basically through some sort of tax or other measure).
NASA is fine, it's the congresscritters that run NASA's budget that you'd have to worry about, demanding that you get DLC from most or all of the 50 states to get all the components you need to get your rocket in the air.
Based on Department of Labor and other numbers, something like 2 to 3 percent of the U.S. workforce is primarily employed as a professional driver of some sort, adding up everything from short and long haul truckers to taxi drivers and so forth.
On one hand, even a 3 percent jump in the unemployment rate wouldn't be catastrophic, given where we're at right now (4.3-4.4%). Adding three percent would put us at mid-2013 unemployment levels. It would also be reasonably geographically distributed, so no one area would likely be significantly worse off (roughly speaking).
On the other hand, we're talking about essentially adding a +3 to any unemployment number, meaning that depending on where we are in the business cycle, it can be a lot worse. Having it happen in 2013 would boost us over 10% unemployment, and at the height of the big recession (2009-10) it would be almost 13%. Worse, you're not going to find a lot of jobs for those people, because their primary skill (driving, especially ones with special requirements like CDL/Hazmat) isn't worth anything at all, nor is it easily transferable. How many of them are going to be able to learn to do something better/more valuable? If they could have, wouldn't many of them already have done so?
And on the gripping hand, note that most of those jobs pay decently enough, ranging from $14 to $20 an hour on average, and while that isn't get-rich money, it's at least enough to live on. What happens when those jobs go away, and create downward pressure on pay for any job below that level by increasing the labor supply for lower-paying low/no skill jobs?
Yes. College age kids are more likely to spend their time doing things like going to college rather than working an entry level no skill job, if given the choice. It's a shocking proposition, I know.
I might work less at my current job. That doesn't mean I would sit on my butt and watch Netflix all day.
I've actually had periods where I wasn't employed for a reasonable stretch of time. Sure, I did a bunch of video gaming at first, but pretty soon I got bored and restless, and needed to find something productive to do. So yes, I'd find something useful to occupy my time. I might not be punching a clock at a corporate office, though - I might start doing independent hacking and vulnerability research for instance. I might set out coding new apps, or other such things. I might do something entirely different like learn more about automotive computer networks. But I sure wouldn't be idle.
Why though? The idea of UBI is that it doesn't change if you get paid for a regular job. You'd get your UBI plus whatever you earn for working.
I guess you could say you're getting out of paying taxes, but how is that any different from the current system where you work at a job and pay taxes on that income? There's no additional incentive from the existence of UBI specifically. I suppose you could argue that payroll taxes are needed to fund it, but that's a big assumption, and many of the cases for UBI assume it's coming from something else (since it often comes in scenarios where there just isn't enough work/jobs for everyone due to automation or such).
Worse, what impact do you think it will have on business travel?
It's even worse if other countries start imposing reciprocal restrictions on travelers from the USA. What do you think will happen to global businesses that need to be able to send people around the world, if/when it becomes a nightmare to travel to and from the U.S.? All of a sudden it starts to become a lot more attractive to move your headquarters and any international operations to Europe or Asia, and reduce the U.S. to a subsidiary that handles only domestic business.
The FBI may not have the best skills at cyber forensics, but they clearly have the legal authorities to investigate a crime such as what the FCC alleged. They do also have access to other expertise beyond that of their agents, as well.
As to whether I'd trust them to do it? The FBI has a certain tribal mentality, and doesn't take kindly to being told not to investigate, or worse to quash an ongoing investigation for political reasons. There's a reason that Assistant Director Mark Felt became Deep Throat - it had nothing to do with his political affiliation, and everything to do with his taking offense at the Nixon patsy of a Director telling them to call off their investigation. That said, I don't know that I disagree with your suggestion that the FBI needs to made more independent of the executive branch. I might even go so far as to suggest the independence of the rest of the DoJ should be considered.
"So as long as your network operator is cooperative"
Translation:
"So as long as you fork over all the extra cash that Verizon/AT&T/etc want for the privilege, you can use your cellular data plan directly without Wifi just like a normal mobile device"
From what I've seen, the only thing that really has any impact is loss of clearance. Otherwise, they turn around and wind up with a new job for another contracting company at a different agency. I've known and worked with people in the government/contracting world who were either fired or quit just ahead of being fired, that were right back in another job at the drop of a hat.
A couple of nitpicks:
One, the battery factory is in Nevada. Musk's car factory is in California, as is his rocket factory.
Two, the pollution this agreement deals with is the sort that has an affect on a global scale, hence the need for a global agreement.
Three, China is actually stating they'll remain in the Paris agreement regardless of what Trump does.
If Trump thinks he can negotiate a better deal, then I'm pretty sure most people, including those CEOs, would be all for him taking a crack at it. What he's considering is nothing of the sort.
Outsourcing is part of the problem, but you're right, it derives from the mentality that IT is a cost center that must be minimized at every possible turn. It's outdated thinking, going back to the days where if your office network went down, there'd be a bit of inconvenience, but the planes still flew, and it wasn't a big deal. Today, IT is a business critical area, because when your network goes down, the planes stop flying, and you stop making money, never-mind the lingering effects from the terrible publicity or the angry customers. It's not something you can afford to skimp on, on any level.
Unfortunately it will probably take several shocks like this, and some high level careers ending as a result, before they start to wise up.
Also, the demand for jobs today is largely in high-skilled/educated fields. To the extent that there's demand for low-skill jobs, they don't pay anywhere near what could be considered reasonable, and certainly not what you would get paid as a professional driver (delivery/taxi/long-haul) today.
Consider the following:
-The median annual wage for a trucker that works for a private fleet, such as a truck driver employed by Walmart, is $73,000, according to ATA. The Labor Department pegs the median annual salary for all truck drivers at around $40,000.
-The median hourly wage for a taxi driver is $16/hour.
-A Delivery Driver earns an average wage of $13.40 per hour.
While the taxi/delivery numbers aren't great, they're also at least reasonably close to 'livable' numbers, especially when you factor in experience bringing you towards the better end of the range. Now consider that there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US, and another ~250,000 taxi drivers (possibly more if you start adding in Uber/Lyft/etc). The working population of the USA is about 160 million, meaning that we're talking about a pretty significant potential disruption.
And that's if it were only drivers being affected, rather than other large swathes of the labor force, too.