Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.

OK. But copied the quote from where? I can't find a source worded like that.

How is 868 a decrease from 813?

That is a sign of the sucess of the language. It means that there are a lot of envitonments in which it runs productively with a well defined scope, very often embedded into an bigger system or package.

Something

Which is exactly the problem. It is a very big and important project and in the current organization structure it seems to have a bus quota of one.

Oh, it's a good dupe. Some people are telling me it's one of the best dupes.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Solid oxide fuel calls can generally "autoreform" hydrocarbon fuels into their elemental parts so they don't need to run on pure hydrogen. They can run on natural gas, ethanol, methanol, even some on ammonia which doesn't emit CO2 at all. I don't know if *this* fuel cell has that flexbility but high temp fuel cells generally have it.

Gaseous hydrogen, green or otherwise, is a terrible fuel and I don't understand how any reasonable person sees a future for it.

Please go back and look at the post I originally responded to, and read it carefully, looking at its logic.

Yep. We all know that quote, and probably most of us agree with it.
There's a huge difference between "a little temporary Safety", though, and an absence of mass shootings.

Setting aside your "or lawsuit", would you rather have a school be the site of a mass shooting than see a child arrested?

The problem with statements is they are disproven by "literally".

This looks useful. Thank you.