Talk about false comparisons and outright lies. A veggie burger is LABELED as vegetarian (and sometimes vegan). To say it is "deceptive" is as idiotic as saying it is deceptive that margarine looks like butter and is not butter. It is on the label.

So in another post unrelated to your demand that the world conform to you, someone misread the label for an ingredient to which his daughter was allergic. Do you have a point?

So you don't know of anyone who actually uses these products but everyone should conform to your wishes. Basically: it does not affect you if veggie burgers are sold in your local store, but screw any vegetarians as the stores should not offer it.

Dude, what is the point of this story? To illustrate how ignorant you are of other people's dietary restrictions? As soon as you said, "kosher", I already knew they would have 0 pork products. Zero. That's part of being "kosher".

Again: You don't have to eat the veggie burger. But you are adamant that no one else have them either because they are made in a certain form factor for convenience.

So in summary: in your world there are no vegetarians. But in your world you find it deceptive that no one has offered something that looks like meat but isn't. In other words, it has not affected nor will affect you but the world must conform to your wishes regardless.

One of the casualties of the Internet has been newspaper science desks. In the post Sputnik era, major city newspapers built teams of reporters with science and technology backgrounds to cover breaking science stories. To make use of that manpower in between big stories, they'd do a weekly science supplement, which was one of my favorite parts to read. These bureaus even had people on staff who could cover breaking news in *mathematics*.

That's all gone now, and you can see the impact of that in the scientifically ignorant summary you are objecting to. Twenty years ago, no major city newspaper would ever print anything that stupid. Today just the New York Times and Washington Post still have a newspaper science desk, and those are much reduced. Smaller newspapers barely cover local government anymore, they tend to just reprint opinion, purchased content, and press releases by politicians and corporations, and dueling reading letters on hot button issues. Actual shoe leather find out the facts journalism is in steep decline. In other words cheap content is more profitable, and science reporting is the least profitable content of all. The most widely consumed remaining sources of science information are non-profit -- the public broadcasting outlets.

Most of these statements are at best half true. The issue is the poster uses "local" to mean country only while discussing all of Europe.

Europe has decreased dependence on Russian energy overall since Ukraine. While imports increased this year, Europe has reduced their dependence by 90%. This is simply not true.

The phrasing of this is somewhat true and somewhat false. Individually countries have phased out certain national initiatives. For example, Germany has closed their nuclear plants; however, German has massively installed wind power to replace these plants. From the standpoint of oil and gas, Norway has replaced Russia by becoming Europe's largest exporter of oil and gas.

For individual countries that has never been true. Germany for example has zero oil and gas production. They rely on Norway, the Netherlands, and the US for these things. However Germany has the largest base of wind power.

[sarcasm]Yes because no other state or country uses concrete any more. Red states avoid concrete entirely as concrete is too "woke". Texas replaced concrete is their massive highway system with hopes and prayers. [/sarcasm]

If you read the rest of his comment, solar requires "devices" which cost money. Once coal is dug up, it miraculously and freely feeds electricity into the grid as he implies.

1) You do know that offshore wind power exists right? 2) Japan's wind power generation as of 2023: 5.2GW. UK in 2023: 16GW onshore, 15 GW offshore. The UK in fact has the largest offshore capacity than any other country in Europe.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying the Pope's opinion is particularly significant to more than half the Supreme Court. They won't necessarily take those words as marching orders; I doubt that they would even agree that all the other Catholics on the court are good Catholics. But it means those words are automatically more weighty than if, say the Dalai Lama or the Lubavitcher Rebbe said them.

If we're not Catholic ourselves, I mean.

I'll tell you why: 2/3 of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic.

And I am not sure how you ignored all the requirements of one technology while listing the requirements of the other? Coal production requires machinery and labor for coal "to be dug up." Then there is transportation costs. Coal needs steam boilers at a minimum to produce power. All of these cost money and plants need maintenance. In fact the main reason why coal power plants has been closed in the US is they cost more to operate than other plants especially natural gas plants.

Only if you are willing to rig the comparisons. It would be saying renting a house is cheaper than owning a house as long as I don't include the rent and utilities on one side and the mortgage on the other side.

First of all, spoils of war doesn't work the way you think it does under international law, according to multiple treaties to which Russia is a signatory. Spoils of war are limited to military equipment like tanks or ships. You can't invade your neighbor and declare anything you can grab as yours because they're spoils. Private property, civilian infrastructure, cultural objects and human beings are explicitly excluded.

So when Russia seized the power plant, what it got -- again according to treaties it signs and holds other countries to -- is a mess of responsibilities. It is obligated to protect and maintain the plant. It is obligated to protect the civilian population in the areas under its control, both by maintaining the plant in a safe condition, and by providing normal infrastructure services to those civilians; it does *not* however, need to ship power to the rest of Ukraine.

So Russia could, under its treaty obligations, sever the grid in the area around the plant from the rest of Ukraine, and connect it to Russia. The plant would then provide normal services to the civilian population in the occupied area, and also provide power to Russia at least until the final status of the province and power plant are agreed to by the belligerents.

What Russia can't do is use the plant, in essence, as a giant dirty bomb to blackmail Ukraine. That is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. But so was destroying the Kakhovka Dam back in 2023. That's a cautionary tail, because it tells you something important: the Russian military leadership aren't just war criminals, they're idiots. The consensus was the intent of the dam destruction was to hamper Ukrainian movements. But it also hampered Russian movements. What's more it cut off the main water supply to Crimea, which Russia considers Russian territory. This caused massive economic damage to the man industry in Crimea: agriculture. Not counting environmental costs, and the billions of dollars required to build new wells and desalination plants, this act by Russian generals is costing Crimea, a "Russian territory", tens of billions of dollars a year economically.

So the takeaway is this: the fate of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is in the hands of idiot criminals.

Most likely the process will use solar power for electrolysis of water into hydrogen gas. From the standpoint of timing, excess solar power would be used to create hydrogen gas which could be store and used at night or other times when solar cannot be used.

Environmentalists are rightfully concerned that the most common source of large scale hydrogen gas creation is processing natural gas, coal, and oil. Such processes release CO2 as the main byproducts.

The problem detailed in the aftermath report was that the power companies did not winterize operations despite a warning 10 years earlier that predicted a major snowstorm would cripple the network. In 2013, a major storm almost took down the Texas grid. Being deregulated, there was no state body that could force the companies to do so in the 10 years after the first warning.

Having personally looked at the old GNU C code, it did not appear particularly difficult to maintain.

Most people who complain about this have never actually looked at the legacy GNU code.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PPQCIq_4k

And of course, he eventually convinced Putin of his viewpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...