I might be reading to much in to the previous commenters use of the word had. But you’re at arguments make a lot more sense today than 30 years ago.
It certainly was fear that stopped Australia from building a nuclear industry in the 90s. It made a lot of sense then. Today, it’s hard to see it anything more as a diversionary tactic.
Just latex to svg your math for impress.
For real though, it’s such a miss for impress to not have in line math
I think it you want to see the environmental benefits, is less of saving animal lives and more ensuring that 100 million animals a year never exist?
Edit: Not sure what is controversial about this. We stop eating meat to stop farming of livestock. No livestock lives are saved, just new animals aren’t born into the mincer.
Slightly more context:
" “I don’t know if we’re going to pull it off,” he wrote, “but looking at our narrative, visual and gameplay plans, I think what we’re working on now will be our best work ever.” "
Or this field research is going beyond correlation… "Over the past few years, scientists have begun to reveal the neural mechanisms that cause the human body to unravel when social needs go unmet. "
Why use metric? Because the fact that 1440KiB is 1.41MiB is annoying.
It doesn’t make it better, it’s just really much more convenient when you’re working in a base 10 digit system. There are lots of times when the advantages of an alternative unit system outweighs that convenience.
Its a funny thing that so many people are emotionally attached to unit systems. It’s a tool, use the best one for the job.
That doesn’t really mashed any sense, what’s there to cover up. She was drinking with her husband and employees, became unresponsive followed by heavy vomiting.
It was her husband who was asking the police/ doctor for help.
Its not like she is aldi trying to apologise for running around abusing staff and pissing on others event stalls. What’s there to cover up?
Nah good on you, fight the good fight. It wasn’t series of mistakes it was deliberate policy choices. Policy choices that show no sign of being changed. Capitalism has eaten democracy from the inside out, it will continue dancing around inside is skin till we see it for what it is.
I mean, it’s speculation. Current estimated completion is November this year, and the battery power price was already raised to 4c in 2020 estimated https://www.capdyn.com/news/capital-dynamics-and-8minute-solar-energy-partner-on-breakthrough-400mwac-eland/
This would still be cheaper than nuclear. But it’s not a true comparison. I am asking the cost to replace fossil generation. Which means some degrees of over provisioning and redundancy. The bank of America paints a very different picture in its 2023 report (https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/) but I hardly trust them.
Either way your evidence from anecdote makes it clear you have as little understanding as I do. So I am still none the wiser if solar + generation is a solution today that makes nuclear irrelevant. If it’s not we can’t just keep burning coal till it is though. People have been saying for 30 years let’s just use renewables. But the world would look very different today if we had transition to nuclear energy back then.
Your statement disagrees with what I could turn up on duckduckgo. Can you provide your sources, I’m not a subject matter expert.
Yes, but your assertion that renewable is cheaper completely ignored the cost of grid scale energy storage suitable to remove fossil fuel generation.
That’s a terrible analogy.
It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.
Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Sulphur in the air increasing the amount of sunlight that’s reflected by the earth.
Both
Wait, what’s your definition of a disease?
Making the light is a relativity easy step, it’s mirrors that are hard af.
But China will develop euv tech and beyond, and I hope they will do it in a new way and advance human knowledge.
And I hope this nationalistic freakshow will just melt away, as it’s a ball and chain on humanity.
I use launtel, I pay a premium i think, but I don’t know because I’ve go no desire to change.
Ok, so I don’t think I explained my thoughts on crushing well. It’s not, in the real world, bludgeoning damage. I can see why they chose to not have a crushing damage type and just use bludgeoning though, as anything susceptible to one would be susceptible to the other.
Ugh, bringing AC into it is a mess. But I think your approach results in the tennis ball lasting an average of 20 hits in a game between two strong opponents. And less time the better they are at playing tennis?
I think you’ve moved the goal post, but perhaps in an interesting direction. If the goal is to simplfy the damage types, what do you lose by replacing force attacks with other types? I think you lose an impact type of damage like damage to creatures you can’t hit with a hammer. Magic missle goes from best to worst spell.
Physically its all same force, electromagnetic, but I think it misses the point. Nobody thinks that lightning is the same as slashing.
Still trying to sell? Would you ship to aus?