React Router’s routes.ts file allows for creating your own route generator functions and merging them with other routes, including React Router’s fs-routes or anything you want.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service operates within a statutory, regulatory, and administrative framework that has kept the agency from effectively addressing rapid declines in forest health. This same framework impedes nearly every other aspect of multiple-use management as well. Three problem areas stand out:
Excessive analysis—confusion, delays, costs, and risk management associated with the required consultations and studies;
Ineffective public involvement—procedural requirements that create disincentives to collaboration in national forest management; and
Management inefficiencies—poor planning and decision-making, a deteriorating skills base, and inflexible funding rules, problems that are compounded by the sheer volume of the required paperwork and the associated proliferation of opportunities to misinterpret or misapply required procedures
These factors frequently place line officers in a costly procedural quagmire, where a single project can take years to move forward and where planning costs alone can exceed $1 million. Even noncontroversial projects often proceed at a snail’s pace.
Forest Service officials have estimated that planning and assessment consume 40 percent of total direct work at the national forest level.
That would represent an expenditure of more than $250 million per year. Although some planning is obviously necessary, Forest Service officials have estimated that improving administrative procedures could shift up to $100 million a year from unnecessary planning to actual project work to restore ecosystems and deliver services on the ground.
In 2007 the Sierra Club successfully sued the Forest Service to prevent them from creating a Categorical Exclusion (CE) to NEPA for controlled burns (the technical term is “fuel reduction”). The CE would have allowed the forest service to conduct burns without having to perform a full EIS (the median time for which is 3.5 years).
Unfortunately yes. In 2007 the Sierra Club successfully sued the Forest Service to prevent them from creating a Categorical Exclusion (CE) to NEPA for controlled burns (the technical term is "fuel reduction"). The CE would have allowed the forest service to conduct burns without…
— Isaiah Taylor – making nuclear reactors (@isaiah_p_taylor) January 8, 2025
This is exactly the kind of willing the future into existence that leaps of progress depend on. Who cares whether all these incredible ambitions arrive right on time or not.
Because ambition this crazy is only likely to emerge from someone equally and sufficiently nuts. And I mean that in the most admirable way possible. Musk is nuts. He’s one of the crazy ones. A true original. Easy to hate, impossible to ignore.
And that’s what gets me. Everyone find it easy to nod in agreement with Jobs’ ode to To The Crazy Ones. Everyone wants to believe that they’d support “the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers”. That they too would cheer for those who are “not fond of rules. And… have no respect for the status quo”.
But they won’t and they don’t. Most people are either aggressively or passively conformist. They squirm when The Crazy Ones actually attempt to change the world. They don’t see genius as often as they see transgressors. A failure to comply and comport. And they don’t like it.
I like it. Not crazy for the sake of crazy, but crazy for the sake of progress. Demonstrable, undeniable, awe-inspiring progress. And that’s what Mr Musk has brought us and continues to bring us.