And how does the energy and resources used in cleaning the bag affect the environmental footprint? Bet it's more than negligable. Not to mention the suggestion in that article to not store the bags in the car, which would result in more cases where you forgot the bags and had to buy more, leading to less reuse.

Yeah, you can do a shitload of engineering to figure out the right size of a heat pump system that will just barely keep you warm 99% of the time. Or you can just use a (perhaps dual-stage) gas furnace which will have plenty of capacity.

The house being "not properly insulated" is pretty much a given for most older houses. Newer houses... well, I don't care how much R-49 you have in your attic or R-23 in your walls, your windows are R-5 maximum, and probably less. And that's assuming no air leaks. Maybe your house was built tight, but most likely after a few years of thermal cycling, weather, animals, and perhaps modifications, it'll be a lot looser, probably in diffuse ways which are hard to fix. Which means your engineered-to-a-T just barely adequate heating system is now inadequate. And unfortunately with heat pumps, oversizing isn't good either, as it increases cycling and reduces efficiency.

Baskets were generally available before the bag ban and not after, so it's not just a New Jersey thing. What happened most likely is people would get to the checkout, not have bags, and just take the basket to the car. And some people would not dump their stuff into the car but just take the basket. And so the stores saw increased costs from replacing the baskets so they pulled them all instead; after all, the point of the stores supporting the bag ban was to reduce their costs, not increase it.

It is NOT normal in New Jersey. Shopping baskets have disappeared as a result, so if you want to shop but don't want to take a cart, you either have to hold the items in your hands or shop into a bag you brought.

The stores don't want you shopping into a bag you brought because of the potential for shoplifting, so they put up signs against it and doing it risks being accosted by Loss Prevention. If you get to the checkout (perhaps with a cart) and realize you've forgotten your bags, you're screwed. Maybe you can buy bags ($2.50 at ShopRite), but rather likely they'll be out. I've had to abandon groceries a few times because of that.

And the result? The amount of plastic used for bags has tripled, as the increased weight of the reusable bags outweighs re-use.

Yes, if you're trying to hire purple squirrels, you're going to have a bad time. Or worse, there's invariably job ads asking for X years of experience in a technology Y years old, Y X. This ain't piloting, there's no type certificates, you don't always need to hire someone who has done exactly what you need done.

California's governor publicly questioned the widespread railroad theft. Most arrested were not organized; many were homeless people nearby opportunistically taking fallen boxes off tracks.

Yes, that's because the primary thieves (who dropped the stuff the homeless were stealing) got away clean.

Theft stems largely from e-commerce boom that reshaped freight shipping to meet consumer demand, opening vulnerabilities.

That's right, blame the victim for providing something to steal.

China bought the hosting.

Just use ed, it's the standard editor. It's not hackable, it doesn't need to be hackable, it already does everything you need an editor to do, and that's edit.

For comparison, the article points out that under U.S. dietary guidelines, "corn on the cob is a starchy vegetable, while cornmeal is a grain."

This isn't as crazy as it seems. Corn on the cob is a different variety of maize than the variety cornmeal is derived from, and they have very different nutritional profiles.

The example using propane or natural gas is likely more about being cheap than anything, burning gasoline or diesel fuel would give the same effect.

I suspect it's about incomplete combustion products. Burning propane or natural gas in air gets you mostly CO2 + H2O + NOx. Not a lot of CO, and very little other combustion products, even without any post-treatment. Gasoline or diesel burns much dirtier. Which probably wouldn't bother the plants all that much, but wouldn't be so good for the people tending them, plus some of the stuff would dirty up the windows.

It is nowhere near borderline "fighting words". The Brandenburg test, which requires that to be suppressed, the speech is directed towards inciting "imminent lawless action" and likely to produce such action, clearly marks it as protected speech.

But Harvard does not apply that standard to its students (and as a private university they don't have to); they punish students for racism, sexism and various other offenses against favored groups. This leaves them in a tough spot when they then don't punish students for calling for the destruction of Israel, because if they're not allowing that speech on free speech grounds, what grounds are they allowing it on?

...of a "misinformation scholar" -- that is, a would-be censor -- crying about her right to free speech being violated.

He was indicted for both possessing a firearm as a felon and destruction of aircraft. He took a plea deal where he pleaded guilty to felon-in-possession and the other charge was dropped.

Part of it even after setup, could be neural engines on device analyzing your photos to help organize them...

Or see if you need to be reported to the FBI, ATF, CDC, or FSB.

Which raises the question on how the heck it can be causing that much cancer compared to stuff like bunker oil, diesel, gasoline, and kerosene(jet fuel).

It isn't. But those things were all made prior to the current EPA regulations and therefore aren't subject to them. Basically if we'd subject the already-in-use petroleum products to the rules new chemicals are subject to, we'd all be freezing in the dark by now.