Fundamentally there’s massive engineering challenges to overcome to get the cost of launch low enough to render space based data centres but they seem easy compared to getting your typical western local authority to approve construction
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Republican|Oklahoma District 1
Kevin Hern
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 497
Yes77%
No19%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 1
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Kevin Hern
U.S. RepresentativeRepublicanOklahoma District 1
SoupScore
Kevin's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 16 sponsored · 30 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
If you watched last night’s Inside Tech (www.economist.com/insider/insi...) you learned that this dynamic is the most important factor making data centres in space a plausible suggestion
this has always been the obvious way to do it. the next thing imo is for these governments to assure the app _developers_ that they don't ned to do their own age assurance. If Apple's checking IDs at the door, then you should be able to build an app for adults without needing to worry
yeowch. 1password getting a 20% price rise
It's great because if it were actually what he were telling friends the sourcing would be far more cautious and circumspect
I know they do things differently in the lobby but this sort of sourcing drives me absolutely nuts. If Mandelson won’t give you comment on the record just write that he declined to comment. You don’t need to launder his excuses through a lens of deniability
Nah too small
Well I'm not defending 'biggest economic issue' either but I think it's quite hard to cite "no-one is starting new businesses with high electricity usage in the UK" as evidence _against_ that
is this not… a bit…
“Oh but a taxi is so cheap because of the cost of living” might make it a convenient city but not a nice one
Having done a lot more business travel recently I’ve finally realised that my definition of a nice city is laughably simple: can I do a three night visit there without getting in a car. That’s it. That’s all it takes to impress me
TBC this would be me winning the steak dinner
Very specifically saying “meat”, as in the screenshot, rather than “beef”, but yeah maybe
Policies intended to change the cost or availability of meat, as with smoking
I think we do! I think reducing meat eaten by 25% in 14 years will require active intervention or it won’t happen. That’s my prediction
Right so we’re just disagreeing which is fine. Very happy to bet that meat eating will not fall 25% unless the government takes more coercive measures than an information campaign. You can take me for a steak for my 50th birthday when I win
You explicitly said it was “within the limits of a good public information campaign”! I’d have stayed in bed if it were just “it’s not going to take rationing”
It feels like we’re all agreeing “they’re going to blow past their carbon targets because they’ve got a wildly unreasonable goal for cutting meat eating”
We’re living in a golden age of people taking the government to court and winning over dumb shit like this. But yeah, fine, if “they can do it with a campaign” just means “they can effect a small reduction in meat eating with a campaign” then probably, yes
If we’re saying “they’ll fail but it’ll still make progress in the right direction” then sure, we agree, but I question whether that’s compatible - in principle - with the idea of a legally binding target
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History497 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
497 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-21 | H.R. 6945 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-21 | H.R. 6945 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-21 | H. Res. 1009 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-21 | H. Res. 1009 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-21 | H.R. 5764 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-20 | H.R. 5763 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 2988 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 2988 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 2988 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Agreed to |
| 2026-01-14 | H.R. 7006 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-14 | H.R. 7006 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-14 | H.R. 7006 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-14 | H. Res. 992 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-14 | H. Res. 992 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 4593 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 4593 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2312 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2270 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2262 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 2262 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-13 | H. Res. 988 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H. Res. 988 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 6504 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-13 | H.R. 6500 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 2683 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-09 | H.R. 5184 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 1834 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H. Res. 780 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 131 (119th) | Passage, Objections of the President To The Contrary Notwithstanding | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 504 (119th) | Passage, Objections of the President To The Contrary Notwithstanding | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Retaining Divisions B and C | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-08 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Retaining Division A | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 780 (119th) | Motion to Discharge | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 977 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-07 | H. Res. 977 (119th) | End debate now | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Call of the House | PRESENT | — | — | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 498 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 498 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 845 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 845 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 1366 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 1366 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-18 | H.R. 4776 (119th) | Approve amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 3492 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2025-12-17 | H.R. 3492 (119th) | Send back to committee | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.