My point is that expanding the acronym isn't useful, except perhaps to chemists who would already know what the acronym expands to. Explaining what PFAS are is useful. And the article did that:

PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. Though the compounds are highly effective, they are also linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.

They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.

So, I think the Guardian did a fine job of explaining what matters.

I would love to see Rivian partner with someone like Winnebago and put out a small RV based on the same design. It would need a larger battery, but otherwise the basic platform would be great for a small RV.

So you don't list anything about CO2 or other pollution in the things you care about.

Of course, if you go with Green Hydrogen, the oil companies will flood the market with cheap hydrogen from gasified coal and natural gas. So hydrogen is an excuse to keep the oil industry going as-is. As someone who has driven an EV for nine years, they're a very solid technology, not some "silly approach."

Now hydrogen may make sense for aircraft or ships.

Yup, bought in bulk, a level 2 charger should be under $300. But that goes up here because you need devices that will stand up to a degree of abuse, and you need them networked to share power to manage consumption across the entire fleet at the location (which also reduces the need to upgrade the power from the utility). I could easily see that running to between $500 and $1000, even given that Amazon is likely buying these by the thousand. But that's still way less than the numbers cited in the summary. But I do agree that the cost of installation will be higher than the cost of the equipment.

That number seems wrong. A typical level-2 charger will run at or below 7kW. So unless they're putting in 400 or more, then that 3MW includes a lot of other power usage. And for a fleet, like this, they could easily install a thousand chargers that are configured to share power, so they would charge slower when all are in use, but it would still work fine: Some vehicles would get done early and start charging first, and as the spaces fill up, the charging rate would slow, but as those that need less finish, the others would speed up. That means they could install enough chargers for all their delivery vehicles now, and then upgrade the power when they start to have shortages.

That's fine. It's still putting out less pollution than the delivery vehicles they replaced. And it means as they switch to greener power, they improve their fleet without having to replace the vehicles.

Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.

Sometimes a hypothesis has potentially observable implications, even if a mad scientist can't reproduce everything in their lab.

I think it has been decades since cosmologists believed the universe is expanding at a constant rate.

Per- And Polyfluorinated Substances. Did that help?

With 65,502 bytes left over.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Not flat, 10% increase. Some of that increase may be due to more dual-income households, but we were already pretty well along that transition by 1999.

IANAPhysicist, but isn't a thrust of 1g specific to the mass you are accelerating? Same device pushing heavier mass gives less acceleration?

Is a claim that you can create a thrust of 1g even meaningful without additional details?

Let's do that: GDP per capita of the UK: $46k. GDP per capita of China: $12k. But maybe China does better at distributing the wealth? Nope. UK Gini coefficient: 35, China, 47 (higher is more inequality). Until recently China had phenomenal growth rates, but that's only because (a) they started from a very depressed level and (b) they mostly abandoned socialism. As Xi is reasserting more socialist policies their growth engine has largely stopped and their growth rate is currently below that of the UK. It's still positive at the moment, but if Xi continues what he's doing, it will likely go negative.

Socialism -- not social democracy, which is a thoroughly capitalist economy that accepts high but strongly progressive taxation to fund a strong safety net -- consistently drives economies into the toilet whenever applied on any scale larger than a kibbutz. Without fail, every time.